I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Debate Experience

West Allis Central High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 3 yrs (Policy)

I have been participating either through debating or judging for most of the last 16 years.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will upset me and make me want to leave.

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them)
• When you try to spread (speed read), but can't keep it clear. If I look confused, I am. I can keep up with your speed if reasonable. The more I judge, the more I see the students getting faster and faster to just get cards on the page rather than advancing their arguments and making strong arguments. If you're reading fast just to get cards out so you can call your opponent out for dropping them, that's bad debate.
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• If you stand up there and say nothing during your speech

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggressive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

Performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine. Kritiks are off-the-wall for me, so run it slow for me.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definitely slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I've been a Nat Circuit PF/LD/Policy judge, a NAUDL policy judge, and a HS policy debater.

In case you read this, good for you. I assume most of you won't, which is fine but then don't expect high speaks.

I am a parent judge from Whitefish Bay. I have judged LD tournaments for 3 years.  I would appreciate clarity in presentation and courtesy between debaters.

Former Debate Coach at Whitefish Bay High School. I keep a rigorous flow and I will vote for all types of arguments.

I'm listening, but I usually don't add cross examination or crossfire to the flow, so make sure you bring it up in a subsequent speech. Flex prep is fine.

I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

For Lincoln Douglas debate, it is absolutely necessary to construct a value framework to win a round. A properly constructed framework includes a value and value criterion with adequate links. The value must be philosophically grounded and function as the consistent basis for the rest of the case.

I am comfortable with speed, unless your speed is trying to replace argumentation with quantity of evidence. Plans and counterplans cannot replace framework, but I will not automatically vote down a plan. Also, K arguments can be acceptable, but are inherently vulnerable to a quality T and superior framework. If you do not adequately link your K to the topic, I will not vote for you.

I did not compete in debate in high school or college. I'm more of a layman judge with a background in communications/media theory and nearly 20 years of LD and public forum judging experience at the high school level. I typically judge at three or four Wisconsin high school tournaments each season. I have judged LD at NCFL for the last few years.

Stick to the basics. For LD, time should be spent on the value criterion debate and contention levels equally and the contentions should uphold the value structure. For PF, give me analysis and citations. Don't just throw statements out to see what sticks. I want to hear why I should care about what you are saying.

I want to hear and process what you're saying, so please do not speak too quickly. No spread. A moderate pace is fine. Quality is better than quantity.

A list of voters in your final speech is helpful, but not required.

I award speaker points based on a number of factors, including clarity of arguments and delivery.

My speech/forensics experience includes three years of high school competition and three seasons at the college level.

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.

Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated 2/7/24

Add me to the chain: christopherjpjackson at gmail

Background:

Ames High School (’14)-qualified to the TOC and then-NFL Nationals

University of Iowa (’17)-Dr. Dave once called my extension of topicality “lucid and succinct”

Wake Forest University ('20)-M.A. in Communication

Genealogy:

I've spent over a decade (yikes) in this activity as either a debater, judge, or coach. Just some of the people who have influenced how I think about debate include: David Hingstman, Brian Rubaie, Kyle Vint, Brooke Kimbrough, Jason Regnier.

Overview:

Existence precedes essence. Or, to use the phrase I see littered across numerous paradigms, you do you. My default setting as a judge is nonprescriptivist, and this is reflected in my voting record. Partially from years of playing baseball, I conceptualize the role of the judge as akin to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes, though that itself can be contested by the participants.

Specifics:

K: I am primarily versed in the cap and so-called high theory set of arguments. I likely have a passing understanding/have previously judged whatever K you are thinking about reading. I am not sufficiently predisposed for or against any position to the extent that it becomes expedient to read something other than what you're best at. While in my day "job" I work mostly as a quantitative social scientist, I still enjoy reading philosophy pieces, including those more critical in nature. I prefer, in a strictly relative sense, more systematic criticisms to individual/subject-centered ones. So, for example, I tend to be a better judge for Afropessimism compared to those focused on embodied performance.

CP: I'm probably about one standard deviation more willing than the average judge to err aff on counterplan theory PROVIDED the affirmative does the work throughout the rebuttals beyond just reading extensions. The theoretical validity of some of the jankier counterplans (cc: Lopez) strikes me as seriously questionable, but again, the aff needs to do the work. Incidentally….

Theory: I don't presume to reject the argument and not the team unless prompted.

T: Yes, please. I am very drawn to arguments about grammar and syntax. Like all judges I do think demonstrating actual impacts to debatability are good and well but am quite fine with the point that words mean things.

DA: <3. While I do broadly accept the standard model of debate (and offense/defense more specifically), I can be convinced that there is functionally zero risk of a link or impact. That the chance of something happening is so low as to be the equivalent of statistical white noise=terminal defense.

A pet peeve: "fiat is an illusion". Absent specific contextualization to the round or an on-the-nose card, please, no. I have yet to hear a round where this argument was deployed in a manner that made me think “I’m really glad we had a discussion of how nothing happens when the judge votes aff” at the end of the day. Note: in the years since I first put this in my paradigm I have continued to hear and vote off of this line of argument. So it certainly is viable in front of me-though I don't like it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have judged plenty of both national-circuit and old-school LD rounds and am comfortable with either. Value/criterion is useful but not necessary.

Public Forum:

You will find I have high expectations for evidence quality and am quite flow-oriented. Doing well in front of me in PF involves:

-directly answering your opponent's arguments. Directly refute what they said. I'm not going to spot you a link

-explicit impact calculus

-being attuned to the flow

Background - I debated for Truman State University and now am a PhD student in Political Science at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. As a quick reference, I consider myself a mix of the three coaches that trained me: Kevin Minch, Zoe Staum, and Craig Hennigan. I probably align more so with Zoe and Kevin than Craig (sorry, Craig). I've advanced to quarter-finals at NFA.

Short Version – Probably bad for Ks, like impact turns, conditionality is fine, and really enjoy in-depth case debate.

Longer Version -
1) Entertain me – I will give points for good jokes and appropriate snark.
2) Ks – I am probably not the best for them. I am very persuaded by perm double binds and you don’t get an alt because you are not just able to wish entrenched mindset shifts away. Further, I think the time constraints in NFA-LD severely limits the depth needed to fully explain the position. That being said, I will vote for Ks. I find case specific Ks/links a lot more persuasive than the generic Ks you ran from high school or downloaded from the internet. If you are able to explain a K without using the rhetorical language of your authors and are able to fully develop the position, you have a pretty good chance to win my ballot. Simply stated, the likelihood of me voting for a K is directly related to how specific the link is.
3) K Affs w/o plan – Run T. I think having some predictability is good and we choose topics for a reason. I don’t think reading a plan means you have to roleplay the USFG and I am not persuaded by most arguments of why being forced to defend the federal government is bad. The most persuasive arguments for me are that alternative styles of debate are more accessible than traditional styles for various oppressed groups and it is better to focus on these groups than rich white kids from KC suburbs.
4) Theory – I like theory, I will vote on potential abuse when given warrants. Impact calc on the standards is really important to me.
5) Impact Calculus – I LOVE impact calc. I really like probability and specific impacts, but I will default to magnitude.
6) Prep - I highly value the research aspect and the pre-round work of debate. It is pretty easy to tell who actually knows the literature and who just relies on their team’s strategies and evidence. This is a big element of speaks for me.
7) Speed – I am fine with it if your opponent can keep up. If you are spreading your opponent out of the round, I will not be happy. There is a difference between speed and clarity. If you are not clear, you should not spread.
8) CX is binding – I listen to it, and it is a really important part of the debate, especially to demonstrate competency and your understanding of the arguments.
9) I will vote on stock issues.

As a debater I competed mostly in Public Forum. As for L.D. I had little to no exposure to that form of debate during high school however since graduation I have judged many L.D. rounds and I am well aware of the in's and out's of L.D. I'm a very tech oriented debater, stick to the flow, answer your opponents arguments, and you’ll have a good chance of winning the round.

Quick Version - Everything is debatable. I will do my best to keep myself out of the round as much as possible. Remember that my preferences are always available for negotiation so do what you do and PLEASE don't try and conform to whatever things I put on here.

Other Meta level things - A good analytical argument beats a bad card everyday of the week. Also, a dropped argument is a true argument, however, this doesn't matter if it isn't impacted. Comparative impact analysis is a must. I try to stick to the flow. I will default to offense/defense. I think it is extremely rare for there ever ever ever to be zero risk of a link.

T - I default to competing interpretations. I think you need to have a counter-interpretation in order to make me vote on reasonability. Topicality debates too often come down to whining, whereas it should be treated like any other section of debate. Impact your arguments and do comparative impact analysis (i.e. why education outweighs fairness, etc.).

CP - They should be competitive. I believe counterplans can be textually competitive, but obviously the net benefit should be formulated as such. I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, dispo, states) and think that you should reject the argument not the team. As a side note, if running topical counterplans is your thing, then do that. Also, I can be persuaded that any differential of a link could be a possible net benefit, but if it becomes a wash, I will not be working for either side.

Conditionality- My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. As with everything, this is debatable. Along this vein, unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

Kritik - I think that debate should be a model for policy-making education. Reps and generic language Ks often run from topic specific education. Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. I appreciate well run Ks, so don't be afraid to run one in front of me if you know what you're doing.

DA - I love a good politics debate more than anything. I am less likely to vote on cheap shots (intrinsicness, vote no, fiat solves, etc.) but can be persuaded otherwise. Evidence comparisons on all levels of the disad are necessary whether you're aff or neg. If I'm left weighing impacts after the debate because no one has done any comparative work you're probably not going to like the outcome. All in all, disads are good so you should probably run them.

Speaker Points - I try to assign speaker points relative of the division I am judging (i.e. I won't be as harsh on a novice as I would a varsity debater)

L.D.

Do to my background I am definitely open to progressive L.D. debate, whether it be Kritiks, K Affs, Plans, Counterplans, anything you want. Also speed is a non-issue.

Values and Criterion/Framework- Generally I see these being underused by the end of the debate. Most debaters I see simply assert that their way of framing the round is better and the only justification they have for it is just the definition of their value and criterion. In a debate you should be telling me why your interpretation of how to frame the debate is preferable. Whether that be because your interpretation encompasses that of your opponent, the education that is garnered from debating under your interpretation is greater, portable skills impacts, etc. Also, tell me what happens to your opponents case/impacts if you win framework. It is typically far less obvious than it seems to you what I should do to your opponents case and I’m not one to try and decipher that you are implying that if you win framework that I should throw your opponents case out. If that really was something that I should automatically do, there would be no purpose of debating the substantive issues of the resolution; there would only be debates on framework and nothing else in this world. On the other side, if you are losing framework tell me why your case can still be weighed or at the very least which parts of it still can be weighed. Typically, you lose a lot less of your case then you think you would even if your opponent wins framework.

Impacts- This is the other part where I believe most LD debates are lacking: impact calculus. Tell me why your impact is more significant than your opponents. Whether it be because your impact is the root cause of your opponents, your impact has greater access to things such as intersectionality (I know that’s a weird way to phrase it, but I couldn’t think of anything better), or simply based upon a greater magnitude of an impact, whatever. Just because you’re not in policy debate you are not excused from doing impact calculus. This is especially true because there are many death based impacts in some LD resolutions. When it comes to this as well, USE YOUR FRAMEWORK, the reason you read framework is in order for you to give priority to your impacts. Be sure to tell that to me outright. Whether you tell me on the framework or impact level debates is fine, but do it somewhere.

LD:

Experience:
I have been judging LD for the past 8 or 9 years.

Speed:
As a former policy debater and judge, I can follow speed. However, I do not feel that excessive speed is necessary for, or really has a place in, LD debate. If you choose to use speed, then you must be clear and articulate well. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Value, Value Criterion:
You must have both, and must support them throughout the round. You must also convince me that your value and criterion are the better ones in the round and that I should vote for them.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Analysis: I like analysis; don't just read to me. Why does your evidence apply to the debate, and how does it support your case? What makes what you are telling me more important in the round? Your evidence should also be cited and from a reputable source.

Cross-ex:
Cross-ex is for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to berate them and try to prove your superiority. I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:
I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and and why I should vote on them.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Michael Moorhead
Affiliation: Appleton East

Updated: 1/17/2017

I hardly judge debate anymore, but when I do it is generally LD. I do a little bit of coaching for Appleton East, but not in an official capacity. I prefer progressive style debating, but you are more than welcome to have a traditional values oriented debate. Beyond that, I consider myself tabula rasa and all my policy opinions stated below apply to progressive-style LD.

Updated: 11/7/15

If you're not going to participate in community norms of past argument disclosure and flashing speeches, then you should not pref me. I write this because of an experience I had while judging LD, but will say I have not experienced this to be a problem within policy debate. I will tank your speaks if you think there is any reason to not allow your competitors access to review your evidence while you are in the debate because it promotes a poor form of deliberation. I interpret your reluctance to make your evidence accessible as a petty antic to secure a minor advantage within the debate space and haven't heard a legitimate reason to think otherwise. 

Updated: 8/16/13

Experience: I debated in high school for Appleton East. Although it is a small school in northern Wisconsin, my experience is predominantly on the national circuit at bid tournaments. My 2NRs in high school were about an even split between policy based arguments and Ks. I am now the Varsity Debate Coach at Appleton East High School. 

Short Version (to be read during pre-round prep)

I believe debate is about hard work. If you do not believe the same or do not put much work into debate, you should not pref me.

I prefer good argumentation/execution above all else. I would much rather see someone get rolled on death good than a K team try to run a politics disad or vis-à-vis. As more of an abstract concept, you should do what you do best in front of me. I should not affect the strategy you were planning on running against the team you are now debating. Nearly everything in my philosophy is debatable, and you as a debater should realize that my opinions are merely that: things that are open to change. This is the part where I give the schpiel about me trying not to intervene except when only left with that option. Being involved in debate as a debater gives me an interesting perspective in that I try to judge as I think that my favorite judges did while adjudicating me. I genuinely believe I am better at judging debate than doing the debating first hand.

Long Version

Miscellaneous:

1. In complete honesty, I don’t believe I have the personal ethos to be like “I refuse to let this argument be read in front of me” and have probably read a variation of whatever you could possibly read at some time or another. The bottom line is that if you have a consult counterplan that some big wig coach wouldn’t listen to, don’t think that their opinions apply to all of us. This should NOT be interpreted as “I want to hear a time cube debate,” but more like, if someone can’t beat a cheater counterplan, then they deserve to lose to one.
2. This should go without saying, but you can read as fast as you want. If you are fast at reading, and know you can do it reasonably clearly, we will not have problems. If I am telling you to be more clear while you are speaking, you will likely have heard you have clarity issues before.
3. I am very firmly tech over truth. I believe a dropped argument is a true argument, except in the instance in which that argument is objectively false. It is worth noting, however, that you first need to meet the criteria of an argument before it has the ability to be dropped by the opposing team.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Whenever I see a good T debate with the aff emerging victorious, it is generally because their interpretation is better for debate for reasons of limits or education rather than because it seems reasonable. Reasonability (taken in any other context of debate) seems silly, and seems to necessitate intervention. The times when I am likely to lean more towards reasonability are instances in which the neg reads arbitrary definitions or has trouble defending their own. Don’t get me wrong, reasonability is very good for the aff, but is not a round winner in all instances. The real question you should ask before embarking on a T debate while neg is if you have a contextualized definition that is specific in excluding the aff you are trying to prove is untopical. If the answer to that question is yes, you will likely do well in front of me providing you can argue T technically and proficiently. Clash and impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as in any other aspect of debate. Ks of T essentially function as impact turns, which means impact calc is still a must, but make it contextual obvi (or just don’t do it because it is dumb). Aspec, Ospec and all other relevant spec arguments are generally not round winners unless the other team is pulling even more intellectually deficient shenanigans. These arguments are better suited either on CPs for questions of competition or as instances of abuse on different T violations.

Counterplans: Bread and butter of a debate. They should be competitive both functionally and textually. While counterplans that only compete off one of those have won in front of me, my presumption is that they are not entirely competitive. Just as a precursor to reading my thoughts on which counterplans are most competitive, this should mean little when preparing for a debate. What I have found generally is people willing to run process counterplans are best able to defend them theoretically. I don’t roll my eyes when someone reads a process/consult counterplan, I just think there are often more strategic options. With all of that being said, I do think the best strategic decision for the affirmative when faced with a process/consult counterplan is to go for theory (in most instances). 

In order from most legitimate to least:
Advantage CPs (ran individually)
Plan Inclusive Counterplans (not including word PICs)
Actor CPs
Multiplank CPs
International CPs
Multiactor CPs
Conditions CPs
Threaten CPs
Process CPs
Consult CPs (i.e. commissions, qtr, etc.)
Delay CPs

Theory: I don't mind theory. I default to rejecting the argument except in the instance that the debate proves irrevocably altered by the theory violation (i.e. condo). I went for condo a decent amount while in high school and think it can be a round winner but only in select circumstances. In round abuse is probably a pretty standard prerequisite to getting me to vote on theory unless you can somehow convince me otherwise. I find myself leaning neg on condo (and most questions of theory), but closer to the middle than most judges you will probably find. Being double twos in the later part of my high school career, I am sympathetic to negs that run 2 CPs and a K, but could also paint a very reasonable picture of someone going for condo in that scenario. It will truly come down to how well you argue theory in that instance. On this thread, I believe performative contradictions in a debate beg the question of why the aff couldn’t sever their representations/methodology/whatever in a similar fashion. I don’t find “they introduced those reps/methodology/whatever first” to be a captivating argument or even a logical response to perf con. A defense of multiple worlds debate being good is probably a better answer, or better yet, just not contradicting yourself. Dispo is probably condo in disguise, and if you are running a CP/K dispo together, you will likely find yourself in a pickle. Otherwise, cheap shots are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, but first need to rise to the level of being an argument. Saying “politics isn’t intrinsic” is not an argument. In the instance that someone were to drop that in the block, then you explode on it in the 1AR, I would likely not credit their arguments in the 2NR as being new simply because you didn’t make an actual argument until the 1AR. I also believe theory is a question of competing interpretations, but could see a more logical argument for reasonability on a theory flow than a topicality flow.

Criticisms: I like GOOD K debates. I have a good background in psychoanalysis specifically, typical reps Ks, and then random flourishes of epistemology based k tricks I would typically deploy while running more normative kritiks. This should mean relatively nothing to a talented debater. If you are actually good at running the K, the amount of background I have in the literature should be relatively irrelevant. I generally think that the framework debate is a race to the middle in who allows the most ground for both sides. Affs should probably be able to weigh their advantages but that shouldn’t discount questions of ontology/method/reps/etc. I can play out many instances in which the aff wins they should be able to weigh their impacts but then loses on the K turning solvency, so that is something you should look out for if you are aff. Link/impact questions are more important to me than the alternative provided you are making the proper framework arguments. As Gabe Murillo once told me, alternatives are generally 2 things. 1. Dumb and 2. Uniqueness counterplans for your K. As such, so long as you can defend that your alt can solve whatever you are criticizing, it can be as dumb as you are willing to make it. Good Neg K debaters will: Employ all of the typical K tricks (Framework, Method First, Epistem. First, Reps First, Floating PIKs, etc.); have a short overview (if necessary) articulating their position on the K in the 2NC, but a larger overview in the 2NR that would reasonably answer most levels of the K debate via embedded clash, and be talented technical debaters that do not group the perm debate. Good Aff debaters answering the K will: Leverage FW as a reason they should be able to weigh their advantages, have a defense of their method/reps/etc., make perms (double bind is probably most captivating), and attack the link of the K.

K affs/Performance: These are generally fine. They are better/more easily judged if they include a topical plan text and defend the resolution, but if your thing is running an aff with a plan you don’t defend because the state is bad or whatever then that is cool too. I find topicality arguments to be more captivating than less definitionally sound framework interpretations. I don't think that non-traditional debating is bad, but I do think resolution based debating is good. That means I probably slightly err neg on an "ideal" topicality debate, but if you are a non traditional debater and win on it often, I will be a more than adequate judge for you.

Disads: Obviously they are good and you should run them. I love a great politics debate more than anything. Refer to my theory section above about cheap shots/politics theory for more information on that. If you have generic evidence, it’s important to frame the disad in the context of the aff. Do impact calc – absent so your disad holds little relevance to the aff. If your turns case argument is garbage, it won’t get you very far unless dropped, if it’s well developed, it could be a round winner. For the aff: Don’t just contest the impact, differentiate your aff from the generic link; if the impacts of the case interact well spend some time drawing differentials/making comparisons. Conceded turns case arguments in the 1AR can be problematic if developed properly.

I enjoy a debate that is well organized, and doesn't relay on topicality or spreading and is cognizant of timing. 

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Be nice and be precise. Be wise and don't compromise.

Having judged debate since the fall of 2015, here's the breakdown of my philosophy/advice for debaters:

1. Be nice: Better said, be cordial and respectful of both the judge and your opponent. If you are in any way condescending to either, you can guarantee that I will take notice. Debating is at its core communicating. You must establish a rapport with all key figures to be successful. If you immediately recognize that you have an edge over your opponent due to one's level of experience or lack of preparation, conduct yourself in the same manner as you would with a more formidable opponent. This includes cross-X, which should not be used to mock, intimidate or villify but rather to gather information to inform your own argument and case against your opponent's while strategically offering insight into your plan of attack. If you are unaccustomed to looking at your opponent during the course of your debate, I challenge you to do so. It takes more courage.

2. Be precise: I have judged debaters who spread and those who don't and have found that both styles can be equally as successful. What distinguishes one's success is an ability to choose words carefully and efficiently use time. Simply spewing a lot of information for the sake of getting it out there, only to drop most of it in subsequent rebuttals, is a waste of words and time. I value precision highly, as I value time. If it seems that you are just reading your case without fully understanding its meaning, you will lose credibility. Do not use words that you cannot pronounce.

3. Be wise: I appreciate creativity in a debater's argumentation, including Ks and PICs, but I can also tell when a debater is relying on a creative line of argumentation simply to avoid the threat of an opposing argument. Exude confidence and adjust to your circumstances. Listen deliberately to your opponent to find holes in his logic and/or in her evidence. I value timely wit and flexibility.

4. Don't compromise. Once you have begun to debate, see your argument through. Defend it, and not simply by restating what you have already said (see #2). Speak purposefully and confidently. During the cross-X do not allow your opponent to have an open floor to have more time to make her case (I see this often! See #3); be in charge and precise in your questioning (see #2).

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I'm trained in Policy, but primarily judge LD and PF (along with Forensics and Student Congress). As such, my background is more overtly political, but I tend towards things more philosophical or abstract.

I will do impact calculus (and by all means, try to convince me of what should be weighed and how), but have some respect for what you're arguing: if you're arguing about a precise number of human lives extinguished, it's time for a break from this activity.

A lot of my philosophy of judging is about having as fair a debate as possible when a debate cannot be fair. As such, a good number of kritiks are not very compelling unless they are very well-linked to your opponent's arguments. The Resolution exists to help narrow debate to guide students to research in a certain direction, so many kritiks rely simply on catching your opponent unawares, and I fail to see the educational value in this. If you're running it in a round I'm judging, it's a total Hail Mary (which is not to say that I would never vote on a kritik - I'd be over the moon to see a linked performative kritik! Convince me!)

Counterplans in LD: You don't present a plan (that comes from Policy, where they draft a plan), so you can't have a counterplan. If you're "running a counterplan" in LD, you're making a contention.
Speed: No, thank you. First of all, if you spread, I might not get everything on my flow - and if it's not on my flow, I'm not going to judge it. Second of all, you should be able to prioritize your arguments to fit within speech times. Having said that, if you speak at a faster clip, and especially if you enunciate, you're good. Oh, and third, spreading will tank your speaker points.

I've been studying intersectionality of oppression and do my best to be mindful of identity issues in debate. If you have a concerns about external factors affecting judging, I'm open to hearing what you have to say, minding the fact that the average tournament doesn't have a lot of time to spare. Also, in a broader sense, suffering is optional: I've had students have breakdowns in my round, and... these things happen, unfortunately. But this is not a reflection of your abilities as a debater or speaker. Will sometimes a round be lost? Sure - this is not the end of the world. I'm here to give you feedback on how well you are at making arguments, and while I can be ornery about specifics, I'm honestly cheering on everyone to bring their best. It's more fun for everyone and it's what makes you a better debater. I have drawn frowny faces on my flow on dropped arguments.

I'm fortunate to have only had to say this rarely, but if I tell you, "you need to speak to your coach," it's not as ominous as it seems. Basically, if I want you to speak to your coach about your ballot, it means that there's something fundamental about debate that you're misunderstanding based on what I observed, and the ballot will be very clear about what that is so that you can get some targeted coaching as soon as possible in order to help improve your performance.

Give me a good debate. Try your best.

Background

I began coaching debate as the assistant coach at West Bend East in the fall of 1971. I think it was 1973 when I became the head coach. I’ve been a member of NFL/NSDA since 1964 and am currently a 5 diamond coach. I’m a retired Speech and English teacher with 50 years of debate and forensic coaching experience.

Policy

Long ago, I believed in case specific details. I still do. Call me old-fashioned. I won’t mind. I’ll consider it a compliment. I believe that the affirmative has a responsibility to present a prima facie case and a plan to correct the problem. I believe their case is strengthened when it’s supported by a number of experts, not just one lone voice used over and over.

I believe that the negative should attack those stock issues and plan. I have been known to vote on T. I expect the violation to be based on reasonable definitions -- probably not words like: "the", "a", "an" -- get the idea? The change needs to be real, not an "it might" situation.

I do not believe that counterplans (I'll listen to them) should be topical or that every plan will lead to a nuclear war. If that were the case, we’d all be dead, not debating. I like the real world. DA's need to link to the case.

I believe that debaters ought to be polite to each other – well, at least civil. I don’t think debaters should be asking or answering questions during another’s cross exam period. If your partner needs help, work with him/her during the week.

I don’t believe that debaters need to talk so fast that no one could possible understand their words. Where’s the logic in that? Can you win arguments when people have no clue what you’ve said? I simply declare that those indistinguishable words were never spoken in the round and no mention of them will be found on my flow.

I like well sign-posted attacks and responses. I like clarity. I like analysis, not just card reading. It’s not my job to make your argument for you. And if your evidence could actually match the tag you read, that would be a tremendous asset to your side. I don’t like jargon. My world is a no “perm” world. Persuade me with your logical, substantiated attacks. The number of issues is not particularly relevant but the impact is.



Lincoln-Douglas

I’m a purist. I expect a clearly explained value from each debater. I expect clash on which value should have the higher priority or who better achieves the agreed upon value. I expect you to answer the question posed by the resolution rather than the question you want to answer.

Although this is theory debate, a few concrete examples will help me believe your position. BTW: theory means just that. L-D should be about whether we should/shouldn't do something. It's about deciding which idea is better than another. It is not policy debate. It does not require a plan to fix a problem and, with that, it does not entertain a counter-plan ( and neither do I.).

I have the same pet peeves here as in all other debate formats. Too fast means I didn’t catch the idea. That’s bad. Too little analysis means I can’t expect your opponent to respond to it. That’s equally bad –actually, that’s worse. I will listen to anything you want to include in your attack. I will not, however, make the attacks for you. Be specific.

At the end, I expect both debaters to flat out tell me why you win the round. What are the voters?

If my comments sound cruel or unrealistic to you, please strike me in whatever way you can because you don’t want me as your judge. Oh, and, no I won’t hold up the next round with oral comments.

If I haven’t answered your questions/concerns, feel free to ask. I’ll share.

PF

Pretty much the same as what I've already covered. I want clearly explained ideas with evidence. Just because you say it does not automatically make it true. I'm not listening for a specific plan (or counter-plan) to solve the resolution. I want to know which side gives me the better outcome.

Congress

When I listen to Congress speeches, I expected clear, logical, well-documented reasons for supporting your position. I don't want to hear you rambling on the topic in general. I want you to respond to the ideas of other speakers. I want new ideas (not repetition) add to the debate. I do like a "smile's worth" of humor added to the debate.

I'm not impressed by pre-written speeches. In fact, those will likely lower your ranking with me. As a former speech teacher, I do appreciate a well-delivered speech but I prefer good solid thought over smooth delivery. A few stumbles are not critical.

If you're answering a question, get to the point. Don't answer the question you want to answer, but rather, answer the one you were asked.

In the chamber, I expect decorum. I watch to see your participation with questioning and to see that you are paying attention to the proceedings.

I should not judge Brookfield East.

I have coached LD for about 35 years at West Bend East and, most recently, Brookfield East. I have had numerous national qualifiers, some who have broken to elimination rounds. This includes one national runner-up and 2 national semi finalists. I think I know what I'm doing.

Now for the stuff you really care about. Persuasive communication is key. I am not an information processor -- that's what the debaters are suppose to do. While I don't make my decisions based solely on speaking style, this is an important component of LD. You can't persuade me if you're busy gasping for air. You should also consider that it takes time to process arguments. If you go so fast as to make that difficult, it won't bode well for you.

Each debater has the responsibility to persuade me that the resolution is either true or false. I prefer this happen with a few well developed arguments rather than many underdeveloped ones. I do not vote based on quantity. Quality is much more important. While I think I keep a pretty good flow, line-by-line is not key for me. I prefer to think of LD as dueling oratories. Give me the details on two or three stellar points and leave the trivial for another debate. At the end of the negative rebuttal and the second affirmative rebuttal I expect to be given voters. Why should I prefer you to your opponent?

LD is values debate. Therefore, the value and value criterion are important. Debaters should show me how their value will be obtained through their criterion and then relate their case to that criterion. If a debater can show me that their opponent's criterion won't achieve the value or that their case better achieves the opponent's value, then the decision is easy. In rounds where there is no values debate, I have to look to the specific cases and which does a better job of defending their position on the resolution. While philosophy plays an important role in developing arguments, there must also be a practical side to the debate. 

While evidence isn't the be all and end all of LD, your arguments should be accompanied by warrants. Then give me an impact. Please weigh your arguments. Why is what you're telling me important to the round? If you don't, I have to do it for you and you might not like the results. Besides, I'm really lazy and don't want to have to work hard at doing what you should have done.

If you have more specific questions, don't be afraid to ask.

Anton Shircel

Coaching:
Assistant coach/judge for Sheboygan South from 2004-2006
Assistant/Head coach Neenah from 2006-2010
Assistant coach Waukesha South 2012-2014
Head Coach Sheboygan North High School 2014-Present

High School Experience:
Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years (1998-2002)
Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS
Participated in Forensics, Mock Trial, and Student Congress

Public Forum Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: This format is geared towards having citizen judges. Speed should reflect a quick-paced conversation. Clarity and enunciation is paramount in understanding the arguments. I shouldn't need to follow a transcript of your speech to understand what you are saying.

Framework: This is a key point that needs to be made in the first speeches. The pro/con need to show the framework of how they achieve a win for the round. This needs to be clearly stated and then proven in their contentions. A lack of framework shows a lack of focus. If for some reason that there isn't a framework, my default one would be a basic Utilitarian framework.

Off Case Arguments: I am not a fan of kritiks, theory, and other off-case arguments in a public forum round. Look, I am not going to write it off on my own. The opposition still needs to address it. However, it will not take much beyond a basic abuse argument for me to cross it off the flow.

Role of Summary & Final Focus: At this point, the arguments have been stated. Each side should be weighing the different positions and showing why they are ahead on the flow. The summary is also the point where there should be strategic choices made on collapsing or kicking contentions/arguments.

Policy Debate Philosophy: Policy Maker
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments. As far as open-cross examination, I am not against it. However, both sides must be okay with the situation.

Topicality: I am not the biggest fan of topicality. There must be a clear violation of the affirmative for me to consider voting. I like a structured t debate with clear standards, etc. and competing definitions. I see topicality as an a priori issue that I vote on first in the round.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a great negative strategy. There needs to be a clear Counterplan Text and some sort of competitiveness. I am not the biggest fan of topical counterplans. Perms need to be explicit as well so that there is no vagueness.

Kritiks: I am a fan of kritks, but the negs need to make sure they understand them. It looks bad if the neg stumbles/contradicts themselves in the cross-examinations. Also, I need a clear alternative/world view from the negatives if they hope to have me vote on it at the end of the round. Again, perms need to be clear and explicit and show that competitiveness does not exist.

Theory: Theory is not the end-all of the rounds for me. I tend to look at rounds as real-world. Some theory would be needed at times such as perms/topicality but should only be used as support to an argument and not as an argument itself.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments.

Whole Res Vs. Plan Specific Cases: I prefer whole resolution debates. If I wanted a plan-specific case, I would be judging policy.

Counterplans: See my thoughts on plan-specific cases above. The same holds true for negative positions that go plan-specific.

Theory: It should be an essential aspect of your position. However, I do not enjoy when it falls into the theory of debate itself.

Former LD/PF Coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI and former PF debater at Brookfield East High School (class of 2014) in Brookfield, WI.

As far as the round goes, my bottom line is that I don’t want to have to intervene so please make the round as clear as possible. Speaking more generally, I think debate can teach

Short Version

LD

I prefer traditional debate.

I'm open to progressive arguments if they're well-presented and clearly link into the resolution, but tread carefully and at your own risk.

Don't spread. It's a cheap strat with no real world value. Left up to me, it would be banned from debate.

PF

PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Please don't be lazy and fire off all your research at me as quickly as possible Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals.

Give voters in the Final Focus. Please.

Long Version

LD

I’m theoretically open to anything as a judge so long as you extend your arguments throughout the round, offer good impact calc, and provide solid links to the resolution (especially if you plan on running anything 'progressive'). This may seem basic but it's only happened in 10% of the debates I've judged, maybe less.

As far as content goes, I would much rather judge a traditional debate. This means providing a framework (ex: value and value criterion) followed by a few topical contentions. I'm okay with Kritiks and theory so long as they apply to the resolution. For example, a Native-American oppression K works well with a resolution about education (seeing as the US actively destroyed Native-American culture through boarding schools), but it doesn't work nearly as well when debating criminal justice. In other words, please tailor your Ks (or theory) to the resolution. If you don't, I'll conclude that someone gave you something to read and that you don't actually know how to debate and will be clamoring for reasons to drop you for the remainder of the debate.

Spreading is a cancer in LD debate. Sure, debate is like a game and spreading is a strategy you can employ to win the game, but it's not something you're going to go pro in- there's no professional debate league. The value of debate to you as a debater derives from the skills it equips you with to navigate through life (i.e. research, articulation, persuasiveness, audience adaptation, etc). The point is that spreading is not a skill you will use in life after debate.

To clarify, I won't drop you for spreading but will gleefully tank your speaks. If both debaters want to spread I will judge the round as you wish but will tank your speaks. I'm sure this annoys many of the "progressive" LDers reading this, but if you're actually good at debate, adapting shouldn't be a problem.

PF

It saddens me that I need to put this in my paradigm, but I will drop you if you run anything progressive in Public Forum. PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience; it is a debate where any generally informed member of the public should be able to judge. If you try and go over the heads of the judge or your opponent and avoid thoughtfully engaging with the resolution, I will not hesitate to drop you on that alone. You are a cancer to PF and should strongly consider moving to policy or LD.

As far as best practices go to win me over in PF (again, pretty basic stuff but I rarely see it in round): make sure you extend any offense you plan on using in the Final Focus through the summary, provide good impact calc (ex: why should I prefer saving lives over saving money?), and please give voters.

It amazes me when I hear people say "and if I have time, I'll give voters." Voters are by far the most important part of the Final Focus. You can't whine about being judge-screwed if you didn't do the work yourself and clarify what the judge should vote on.

Feel free to reach out with any questions: ashveersingh12@gmail.com

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

put me on the email chain

kedrickstumbris@gmail.com

tldr: do whatever you want - I've judged and coached at nearly every level (Wisconsin locals to TOC elims) and will consider any argument presented. While I try to be a neutral adjudicator as much as possible, I certainly have some predispositions that I think are important for competitors to know. Those are below. This doesn't mean you should preclude yourself from reading any argument you prefer (an argument you know well that I don't like will always do better than an argument you don't know well that I do like), but my predispositions should probably affect the way you explain your arguments and how much detail you want to put into them. I truly do despise judge intervention; please resolve debates so that I don't have to intervene and get my predispositions involved in the round. If you think I'm doing too much work for either side, it's because I would've had to do more for you. Oftentimes what you perceive as "bad decisions" are actually your poor explanations.

if you have more specific questions while doing prefs - email me - I'm very responsive

if you have more specific questions during pre-round prep, I will answer when both competitors are in the room

predispositions to other things:

- I was a policy debater and my students are all util debaters. I think substantive engagement about the topic is a good thing. This doesn't preclude reading a K aff.

- Phil debates are boring. I don't enjoy judging them. Nobody ever explains what their buzzwords mean. You should probably have to defend implementation.

- I don't know why theory debaters keep me high on their pref sheet. I feel like I've made it clear that I think you're annoying and that doing research and engaging the topic is valuable. I'm probably not the judge to argue "spikes/theory key to small schools" shenanigans because my team proves that argument is heckin' wrong.

- Your CPs need net benefits. Your disads/advantages need uniqueness. Your aff needs an inherent barrier.

Speaker points- I have recently tried to adopt a more rigid speaker point scale based on data that reflects the average points speakers get at major national tournaments now. This point scale and its inception are discussed by Bill Batterman on his blog The 3NR. The scale is found below.

29.3+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.7-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Email for fileshare:

umstotd@elmbrookschools.org

Don't postround me. I judge on what I heard in the round and nothing you say after the round will change my ballot. If you do choose to postround me I will walk out of the room and give you the lowest speaks possible for the tournament. You may email me with questions after the round provided your adult coach is CCed on the email.

POLICY
Three years policy debate experience, head coach at Brookfield Central High School.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, but if you don't tell me what to vote on, I'll fall back to which is the better policy based on impact calculus. Do the impact calculus for me, unless you want me to do it myself.

I'm not a fan of Topicality. I'll hear it, and I'll flow it, but you must convince me that it's a voter and your definition can't be absolutely ridiculous.

I love Counterplans, as I was a CP-heavy debater myself. Kritiks are fine, but give me a clear alternative and make sure that you explain your K well.

You can speed, but not through tags or analytic arguments. I need to be able to flow. I'll tell you if you're speaking too quickly for me.

Use roadmaps and signposting. It makes it easier for me to flow, and better for you if I can understand the debate.

Clash is by and large one of the most important things in a debate for me. You'll keep my attention and get much higher speaker points.

I like real-world impacts. You might have a hard time convincing me of global extinction. Be smart when it comes to impacts and make sure they realistically link.

Open C-X is fine, but don't go overboard. Keep in mind that it's your partner's C-X, and if you use all of it, I will dock you speaker points.

New in the 2 - I'm okay with this I suppose...but with this in mind, the Affirmative is definitely free to run theory on this if the 2N is just trying to spread the Aff out of the round by saving their entire offense for the 2NC.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
First and foremost, I evaluate the framework. However, even if you lose the framework, that doesn't mean you've lost the round. Prove your case can fit under your opponent's framework. If I can still evaluate your case under your opponent's framework, I can still buy your case. As far as the contention debate goes, I don't necessarily buy that you have to win every contention to win the contention debate. You don't have to take out all of your opponent's contentions, either. Focus on impacts. Focus on weighing your case against your opponent's case, and how each contention provides the best example of the value. The team who provides the most evidence that shows affirming/negating will benefit society (through either value) more will win the debate.

I welcome CPs, Ks, and ROTBs, as long as you are running them because YOU understand them, not because you think your opponent WON'T. The point of debate is education, and running a tricky K in a convoluted way to confuse your opponent won't win you a ballot in front of me. Be clear and contribute to the education of debate. I prefer that you don't spread too much in LD. Although I do judge policy as well, and can flow most speed, it's not my preference.
I'll disclose but I'm not going to give you excessive oral critiques. That's what my ballot is for.

Tl;dr

• Strike me if you're a relatively inexperienced "circuit" debater who is trying to debate in a "circuit" style: i.e. spreading for its own sake, running theory because you haven't researched enough case material, etc. Pref me highly if you are not such a debater or if you come from a traditional circuit and expect to be debating a value and value criterion (by no means am I saying you must have those things). Pref me in the middle if you are an experienced debater who truly understands when using certain strategies is important and you're not just reading me what a coach/teammate told you to run.
• On spread--I can flow spread just fine; however, I don't like spread when it is used as a barrier for discourse. If you and your opponent are comfortable with spread (defined as 250 wpm or above) then go for it. Speak loudly and clearly and I'll be fine. If not, if your opponent can't flow spread, please do not spread. If your opponent can't respond to your arguments simply because you're speaking too fast then it is your fault, not hers. You won't lose the round for it but your speaker points will suffer.
• On arguments--run whatever you think is most effective. However, know that I don't really like Topicality as a response. I have judged an awful lot of debate and can count on two fingers how many arguments have truly been nontopical. Usually, T is run against arguments that debaters don't otherwise know how to respond to and I don't like that. You are welcome to tell me a nontopical argument is nontopical but please also engage the substance of the argument.
• On evidence--I believe this to be a community of integrity. There are individuals who will do shoddy things and we should discourage that but there are others who call falsification without proof as a strategy. Both are bad. THE MOMENT I HEAR "FALSIFICATION" THE ROUND STOPS. I evaluate the evidence and award a loss to the debater/team that was wrong. If you're calling clipping, calling falsification, etc, prove it. The burden of proof I'll use is not a steep one but it needs to show misrepresentation. I'm not encouraging falsification nor am I discouraging calling it; however, those are tall accusations and it is your burden to prove it.
• I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, or Dumbfoundead reference and I'll smile and be happy with you and might give you an extra speaker point.

The rest of this paradigm is a verbose discussion of my thoughts on the activity to which I've dedicated much of my life for the past eight years.

Background:
Assistant Coach of Forensics and Debate at Brookfield East High School. Previously coached at Whitefish Bay High School. Competed in Wisconsin and nationally in Congressional Debate and in Public Forum debate with Brookfield East (class of ’12). I have a bachelor's degree from Marquette University in Milwaukee, majoring in Political Science (concentration in public policy/political economy) and Economics (analysis in international trade, econometrics, and public finance/policy evaluation) with a minor in Spanish. I'm a nerd for the studies and empirical research. In real life, I run a restaurant and small investment firm with differentiated subsidiaries.

I judge almost every weekend from September through March and am well versed on the topic literature as I research and cut cards with my team. I coach PF and LD as well as Congressional Debate (and IE’s in the spring) so I read lots and lots of evidence.

Value/Criterion:
I'm extremely progressive on this topic. I feel that the debate is ultimately decided in the metaphysical realm and there are generally few empirics you can run strongly on the topic. Give me something to chew on here, more than usual. I think a lot of the debate is going to be framework and theory. I will accept Anti-values, Standards, et cetera, instead of a traditional V/VC structure. You can advocate a standard-less debate as well as long as you give me good theory to back it up.

Definitions Debate:
I will only vote on a definition if it goes dropped and really does redefine the debate in a way that I can only vote for one side. That being said, if you present me a really shady definition that defines it so that the Aff/Neg has no chance of winning the round and your opponent provides a legitimate and fair definition in response I, as a judge, am always going to favor the definition that provides equality to the grounds of both sides. This shouldn’t have to be said but I will always prefer a term of art definition to Webster’s even if the dictionary is the only card presented. I am a word nerd; please don't BS me in the definitions debate.

I generally don't like verbose discussions of framer's intent with resolutions. I'm intimately familiar with how these resolutions are actually written--don't try to run ridiculous things on these grounds.

Types of Arguments:
I will accept any type of argumentation you throw at me as long as it's well argued with warrants and impacts. You can kritik the resolution; read me poetry that helps me better understand the plight of the needy; K the opponents case or his language; run a narrative alternative; run a priori reasons to negate; or tell me my ballot is a tool and I should vote for you for some obscure yet well argued reason. I personally believe that good argument is good argument—if you give me reasons why it should be the voting issue in the round I will vote on it. That said, if you provide an argument that requires me to accept something completely non sequitur with reality, I will reject it. In other words, if you tell me I should affirm because there are only 49 states and that is a prime number, I won't vote on it because, well, there aren't and it’s not. Otherwise, I don't intervene.

I can follow complex philosophy pretty easily but you shouldn’t assume anything and take shortcuts here, as I’m nowhere near as proficient as I’d like to be. I love philosophy; I’ve read a lot on many subjects and can follow along with sound analysis; however, it's bad form to assume that your opponent will be familiar with your concepts. Debaters should generally subscribe to the ELI5 method. That is to say, if you can’t explain your argument to a five year old, you don’t fully understand the concepts yourself. I will vote on theory but please explain why voting on theory should trump case evaluation.

Extending arguments is important; however, telling me to "extend contention 2--it went cold conceded" is far less effective than summarizing the argument and presenting it as a round issue. Same goes with cards. "Extend the Coase analysis" is valid but less effective than explaining it to me again so I know why it's important.

I've developed a slight disdain for plans over time as they present an infinite research burden but will still vote on them.

Evidence:
People who say evidence doesn’t belong in LD are, for some reason, clinging to the archaic as a means to bring the activity towards where they think it should be rather than allowing it to grow organically. Use evidence if it's necessary for your argument. I’ll buy sound analysis over a shoddy card any day but you should back things up with research. My thoughts on this are developing over time as I watch more rounds. Really, I appreciate the debaters who make sound arguments that are based in analysis over those who rely on their evidence to analyze things--it shows a better understanding of the issues. However, reading me cards without analyzing them yourself is the equivalent of saying nothing. Signpost then analyze the evidence—tell me why I should care about what the author is saying—why does it impact the debate?

I’ve never had to ask for a card before but will if I have to. Don’t clip cards. This is a community of integrity—keep it that way. I generally won’t vote on cards; I vote on arguments. I don’t really care whether a Ph.D said it… if it’s sound, I’ll buy it and if it’s not, I won’t. To be clear, I expect more than regurgitation or carpet-bombing.

I need adequate citations. Name is usually enough if they’re not claiming anything weird but sometimes it’s best to hear a few words on the credentials too. If you’re citing an analysis of Rawls or Kant, name-drop the master so I know what’s going on, please.

Delivery:
I can flow pretty quickly and can handle “debate speed” but don’t want to hear much more. This is more a philosophical issue than anything else—I generally will pick up a spreader 50% of the time, as they tend not to make any more, or better, arguments than a non-spreader. Quality will always beat quantity. As this is a communication event, don’t forget that you have to communicate your arguments so that I may understand them. I'll yell at you if I can't hear/understand what you're saying, of course.
I like signposting; it enhances the debate. You have to tell me where things go on my flow if you expect me to write them down. If you’re giving an overview, tell me. If you’re starting with the second contention and then coming back to the first for some cockamamie reason, tell me.
SPEAK LOUDLY
As a general rule, if I’m looking back at you in a speech (not in CX) you’re likely not saying anything worth writing down. If you read me a canned 1AR that has nothing to do with the opponent’s case, I’ll read the posters in the room or count down the seconds on my timer until the time-wasting has completed. I like clash and debating, if you haven’t noticed.

Decorum:
I don’t care whether you sit, stand, or lay on the table when you debate. Do what makes you comfortable. If that means taking off your jacket because it’s hot—go for it. Take off the heels—I don’t care.
Be nice. I get that things get heated—I was a debater too. I get it. Not much more to say here. However, if you are disrespectful it will reflect in your speaker points. There’s a fine line between assertive and jerk. I’m liberal here but have seen many rounds get out of hand. As a general rule, treat others the way you want to be treated: respectfully.

Voters:
Give them to me. If you don't, I will intervene strangely and vote in ways you won't like. Tell me how to vote. This is your round and not mine. You don't have to give them all at once, but if they aren't given I am left without a methodology to adjudicate things

Weighing:
Please weigh your impacts. If you tell me that I should vote aff for puppies, and I should vote neg for kitties, I'll be happy you've given me voters but lost on how I'm supposed to weigh them—link back through your criterion or make sure I understand there are real world impacts outside the resolution. If you're still reading this exceedingly long thing you are an excellent human and probably already know how to weigh impacts. 

Speaker Points:
I used to be a stickler about them but have seen the trend of inflation coming. With their use as a common tiebreaker, I’ve become a sort of point fairy. However, there is a scale. I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, Dumbfoundead, et cetera, reference and I might have to give you an extra point or two.
30) Excellent, passionate and engaging performance. Not uncommon but hard to attain. Argumentatively speaking, not much else you could have done better. I’m impressed. Most likely on par with the best thing I’ll see in the tournament; you deserve a speaker award.
29) Sound arguments and leadership in the discussion. Not much to improve in the way of argumentation. I’m impressed. Much more common that 30’s. You've taken the time to read your judge's paradigm--bravo to you for doing what I try to get my kids to do--you'll do fine with points.
28) Great job with the argumentation. Good delivery and good leadership. You did all that was expected of an experienced debater.
27) Great job with the arguments but you likely lost the round because of something here. You did all that was expected of a good debater.
26) You could have done more with the argumentation. You likely dropped something or committed a logical fallacy or two. Competent delivery.
24) Argumentation was deficient in some way. Delivery was likely lacking in poise.
23) You’re likely out of your league and still learning. That’s still good though—learn from our mistakes. Few refutations made and delivery was lacking. Usually didn’t fully utilize time given
20) Equally as common as 30’s. I give these because they’re usually the lowest I’m allowed to go. Only given when there’s misconduct of some sort. I’ll note on the ballot what you did to irk me.

Be nice and be precise. Be wise and don't compromise.

1. Be nice: Better said, be cordial and respectful of both the judge and your opponent. If you are in any way condescending to either, you can guarantee that I will take notice. Debating is at its core communicating. You must establish a rapport with all key figures to be successful. If you immediately recognize that you have an edge over your opponent due to one's level of experience or lack of preparation, conduct yourself in the same manner as you would with a more formidable opponent. This includes cross-X, which should not be used to mock, intimidate or villify but rather to gather information to inform your own argument and case against your opponent's while strategically offering insight into your plan of attack. If you are unaccustomed to looking at your opponent during the course of your debate, I challenge you to do so. It takes more courage.

2. Be precise: I have judged debaters who spread and those who don't and have found that both styles can be equally as successful. What distinguishes one's success is an ability to choose words carefully and efficiently use time. Simply spewing a lot of information for the sake of getting it out there, only to drop most of it in subsequent rebuttals, is a waste of words and time. I value precision highly, as I value time. If it seems that you are just reading your case without fully understanding its meaning, you will lose credibility. Do not use words that you cannot pronounce.

3. Be wise: I appreciate creativity in a debater's argumentation, including Ks and PICs, but I can also tell when a debater is relying on a creative line of argumentation simply to avoid the threat of an opposing argument. Exude confidence and adjust to your circumstances. Listen deliberately to your opponent to find holes in his logic and/or in her evidence. I value timely wit and flexibility.

4. Don't compromise. Once you have begun to debate, see your argument through. Defend it, and not simply by restating what you have already said (see #2). Speak purposefully and confidently. During the cross-X do not allow your opponent to have an open floor to have more time to make her case (I see this often! See #3); be in charge and precise in your questioning (see #2).

• Speed: On a scale from 1 to 10 where 5 is normal speech and 10 is spreading, I'm ok with a 8 or a 9. I will flow spread, but I won't like it.
• Evidence: Unless something is obviously factually incorrect, I will leave it up to the debaters to determine the validity of evidence. That being said, I don't like hearing debates about whether or not a piece of evidence is true or not unless it is absolutely critical to the round - and even then, it's not fun listening to that sort of argument.
• Arguments: I will listen to anything as long as they are well argued. Plan/Counterplan, K, topicality, etc. have at it.
• On debates: Both sides should engage each other as much as they can. I don't want to have a 'flip a coin and call it' type of round - crystallize and give reasons why I should give the ballot to you as much as possible.
• Prep: Do flex prep if you want, it's your prep time, do what you will with it