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.

Policy:

When judging policy rounds, I look for answers to the following 3 questions:

1: What is the problem in the status quo?

2: What Harm is the problem in the status quo causing?

3: How is the Affirmative plan solving for this problem/Harm?

With those 3 questions in mind, I consider myself a Policy-Maker judge with a conservative bias.  I love to hear topicality arguments, counterplans, and DAs. I do not like kritiks and typically will not vote on them. Topicality, if argued, must be run in the 1NC.

Cross-Ex:

I prefer closed cross examinations as I believe that cross examinations allow the debaters to show the judge how well they understand what they are debating through the questions they ask and the answers they give.

Speaker Points:

I prefer a clear presentation. No Speed and Spread.

Typically the debater with the clearest arguments, most comprehensive rebuttal, and best cross examination performance receive my #1 rank.

Lincoln Douglas:

Having a background in Policy debate, I prefer debates that are contention based, not philosophical.

When judging Lincoln Douglas rounds, I look for the answer to the following questions:

1: If I had to do what the resolution asks in the Real World right now, which way would I go, based on what I just heard?

2: Whose value criterion was clearest? Which debater convinced me that he or she best supports his or her value? If it’s equal, which proved to have the “higher” -- more important -- value?

3: Whose arguments were more convincing?

Speaker Points:

I prefer a clear presentation. No Speed and Spread.

Typically the debater with the clearest arguments, most comprehensive crystallization, clearest value criterion, and best cross examination performance receive my #1 rank.

For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

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.

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.

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.

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).

The most important things to know about debating in front of me are that I tend to prefer traditional argumentation. However, there is no position I will not vote on if executed well. I judge solely based on the cases presented. Make sure you establish how the round should be evaluated (clearly determine value, contentions, framework, etc.) and use your time during cross-ex effectively.

Experience:

I participated in speech (informative category) during high school. This season is my first year judging debate. Since September 2016, I have been judging novice and varsity PF and LD. Additionally, my career path has largely incorporated public speaking and critical thinking so I have a strong capability to critique and evaluate speakers.

Rate of Communication:

I am okay with speed as long as articulation is maintained. My perception of your performance can be affected negatively if your rate hinders my ability to understand what you are saying.

Persuasive Communication:

I greatly value the ability to persuade. Confidence in information and familiarity with the topic are prerequisites to this. As a speaker, you must show concern for the fundamental questions using research and logic. Credibility is also achieved through physical appearance by presenting yourself polished and professional. Intonation is important in emphasizing strong points and I appreciate meaningful eye contact directed at both me and your opponent off-and-on throughout the debate.

Cross-Examination:

Please be civil and respectful in speech and tone. Please make concise responses and use your ability the paraphrase to use your time wisely. I value speakers who ask strategic questions and remain composed.

Value/Criteria:

As LD is a values debate, a value and supported criteria are essential. Establish your value and determine how you will achieve your value through the criterion. I like comparative phrases that distinguish how the opponent’s criterion does not achieve the value and how yours better achieves the opponent’s value, if possible. I expect you to emphasize why your case is the best solution.

If you have questions, please contact me at erika.schneider@marquette.edu.

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.

I debated LD for 4 years at Brookfield East High School (WI), and judge a couple of times a year these days.

My Ballot

• Set a rule for me to use and weigh through it. You can set a V/VC, standard, or some other kind of weighing mechanism. Define it well so I know how to use it. I'm not voting on who sets the criterion. I'm voting on whose impacts are the most relevant through that criterion.
• I default to using my ballot to evaluate who best accessed the criterion. I'm willing to use my ballot as a tool if and only if I get a clear ballot story from you. Don't expect me to be convinced by a shallow critical argument about how affirming or negating have out-of-round impacts, especially when .

Your Arguments

• Show me something interesting, or an argument you're proud of! That doesn't mean the weirdest case -- a well-warranted stock case is an achievement too. Run whatever case you want, but remember to give some sort of standard and be ready to justify your approach. I'm open to arguments that your US-spec case doesn't normatively affirm or negate. If you run an atypical case (e.g. a PIC) without telling me how to adapt I'll have a hard time squaring your advocacy with my baseline conception of affirming and negating.
• I'll flow speed, but I can't flow spread. It's been some time since I was active. I'm also not a fan of speed used to obfuscate your arguments or spike your way to victory. If you get too fast, I'll drop my pen and stare at you. I won't shout 'clear' or 'slow'. It's on you to notice and adjust.
• I'll vote on theory, but only reluctantly. My experience with theory is that it represents a barrier for debaters who want to enter the circuit, and is often used to sidestep substantive debate. If you want to run theory in front of me (especially if I’m supposed to vote on it), there had better be an egregious violation that you’re criticizing. Articulate theory clearly. I'm only loosely familiar with the formal structure of a T-Shell, so it's not in your advantage to shout "Interpretation!" and blaze onward. Tell me (1) what sort of debating norm I should be endorsing, (2) why, (3) where the violation happened, and (4) what that implies for the round or my ballot. I am extremely unlikely to vote on the risk of offense coming from a T-Shell. Strong defense on a T-Shell can be enough for me to disregard it; I'm also very open to dropping arguments instead of debaters; you'll need to convince me that your opponent is doing something so wrong that I need to reject not just that practice, but them as a debater.

Speed – I haven’t been judging debate enough to keep up with my practice of listening to speed. I am sure after hearing a round or two I may be back to my coaching days. However, I would caution on the side of speaking slower than what you may be used to, so that I may ensure I follow the entirety of the debate. I understand the advantage of having multiple arguments on the flow. I would be more impressed with the way arguments are used within the round.

Arguments – All germane arguments are on the table.

Critical Arguments – When I listen to critical arguments I really appreciate if the tenets or the claims are threaded throughout the entire debate. This goes for both sides. Those who propose the critical argument should provide a general summation of the argument and then provide the important “pillars” of the idea. Those opposing the idea should consistently find time within their speeches to (re)iterate the “why” as to their winning their position.

Judge as Judicator – My intention is to try to remove all bias from my decision within the round. I try to maneuver in such a way that I examine what arguments were presented and how were the speakers “using” them to persuade me to either side. This means I try to create good flows. Clarity and an appropriate speed and volume are essential. As an educating activity FIRST, we must all work together to make the activity enjoyable for the simple fact of learning something new. Therefore, all EDUCATION voters will be a big thing for me in any theory debate. Furthermore, I would implore the speakers to use the founding principles of the movement of debate (i.e: extensions, cross-applications, direct clashes, etc.). I would even go so far as to ask that you blatantly use these words when you are performing the skill. This helps me “envision” the flow of the debate round with more clarity which will ensure a fairer decision.

Prep Time – I will keep my own time for the speeches and prep. My clock will be the primary clock referenced in round. Flashing a constructive will not be timed. Asking to see a specific card before your team’s speech will be timed when the piece of evidence is presented, or 30 seconds has elapsed. I do it this way to ensure fairness for both parties. If the opposition team is taking to long to find the card that was asked for after hearing it read, then they gave their opponents a free 30 seconds of prep time. Both teams are subject to this standard of accountability. This means cards should be called for at the top of the cross examination period by the questioner and the partner of the opposition should be searching for the request while cross-examination continues.

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).