Information about myself:

I competed in debate for four years at Watertown High School in South Dakota. I did a little policy, public forum, but my main focus was LD debate. I was the head coach at Tea Area School District for two years. I am currently an assistant debate coach for Watertown High School. Listed below are my paradigms for LD, Policy, and Public Forum Debate.

Note: If you have any other questions feel free to ask before the round but if you do ask I will wait to make sure everyone who will compete in the round is in there so no one has an unfair advantage.

LD Debate:

I am a very traditional LD judge in that I really enjoy Value/Criteria debate. Contentions should support your Value/Criteria and the resolution for your side. For voting my very first look is Value/Criteria and is either of the sides still standing or has the other side has shown me as the judge that they can uphold not only their own but also their opponents. In a closer round then I will go to the contention debate.

Value/Criteria-If someone completely ignores the Value/Criteria in their case or in the round then they will most likely lose the round as Value/Criteria is the most important part of LD debate for me.

Voting-When walking into each round of debate, no matter what, I go in with a clean slate and each round is a new round even if I have voted for one person over the other previously and they are facing each other again on the same side. I will only evaluate the round based on what I hear not what I know so do not assume I know.

Ballots-Each round I will also give my RFD (Reason for Decision), make sure you read this if you are wondering why I voted the way I did.

Timing-As the judge, I am the one who has an official time in the round. If you want to give me an off-the-clock road map please notify me (right away!) of this or else I will start the clock and it will count as part of your speech. I will give you 30-sec intervals (until it gets down to your last 30 seconds then I will give you 15, 10, 5) of prep time so you don’t need to ask what you have left and I will let you know of your time before I start and when I stop your prep time. With stopping your prep time, remember I have your official prep time so therefore what I have is what you have left of prep time(My pet peeve is when you tell me to stop prep time and/or tell me that you have X:XX left of prep time, so not don’t do this).

Cross-X-Make sure you ask relevant questions and be polite during cross-x but remember if you are asking the questions don’t let them take the time just rambling on about things that don’t matter if they answered your question. If they answered your question don’t be rude about moving on to your next question. I really like it when students say “Thank you but can I ask another one?”

Flowing/Speed-I flow everything in the round, including cross-x so remember what you and your opponent say because it could help or hurt you at the end of the round. I am not a fan of speed at all so make sure you go at a conversational speed so I can write it down.

Electronics-I know electronics are now a very familiar thing in debate but when someone asks for your case or evidence then you better have a way to share it with them either by flash drive (if they have a computer) or have it printed out for them to look at or you might have to give them your device. Also, I am okay with using your phone as a timer in the round.

Public Forum Debate:

Voters-If I get one from both sides then I weigh both frameworks and look at who achieved both frameworks. In the last speech for each team tell me why you won the debate and achieved the framework. If there is not a framework debate going on in the round then tell me what the voters are. If the Aff has 3 voters for the round and the Neg has 3 but only 2 are the same then I will look at those two to decide the round.

Voting-Voting-When walking into each round of debate, no matter what, I go in with a clean slate and each round is a new round even if I have voted for one person over the other previously and they are facing each other again on the same side. I will only evaluate the round based on what I hear not what I know so do not assume I know. If you leave it to me at the end of the round to decide who won round one if not both teams will be disappointed with the RFD. Tell me why I should vote for you and write the ballot for me.

Ballots-Each round I will also give my RFD (Reason for Decision), make sure you read this if you are wondering why I voted the way I did. I will tell you why I voted the way I voted, I will list each voter and framework, if it comes to it, and state why the team won or lost on each point. Again write the ballot for me.

Timing-As the judge, I am the one who has an official time in the round. If you want to give me an off-the-clock road map please notify me (right away!) of this or else I will start the clock and it will count as part of your speech. I will give you 30-sec intervals (until it gets down to your last 30 seconds then I will give you 15, 10, 5) of prep time so you don’t need to ask what you have left and I will let you know of your time before I start and when I stop your prep time. With stopping your prep time, remember I have your official prep time so therefore what I have is what you have left of prep time(My pet peeve is when you tell me to stop prep time and/or tell me that you have X:XX left of prep time, so not don’t do this).

Cross-Fire-Make sure you ask relevant questions and be polite during cross-fire but remember if you are asking the questions don’t let them take the time just rambling on about things that don’t matter if they answered your question. Also, I do not like just one person or team taking over the cross-fire time. If they answered your question don’t be rude about asking a follow-up. I really like it when students say “Thank you but can I ask another one?” Also the first two cross-fires, it is solo cross-fires and I don’t like team cross-fires (that is what Grand Cross-Fire is for). If you want to ask a question and your teammate is up there then give them the question on a piece of paper.

Flowing/Speed-I flow everything in the round, including cross-fire so remember what you and your opponent say because it could help or hurt you at the end of the round. Also since I flow everything, I am not a fan of speed at all so make sure you go at a conversational speed so I can write it down but I do not want you to go too slow.

Electronics-I know electronics are now a very familiar thing in debate but when someone asks for your case or evidence then you better have a way to share it with them either by flash drive (if they have a computer) or have it printed out for them to look at or you might have to give them your device if they ask for it. Also, I am okay with you using your phone as a timer in the round.

Policy:

I'm okay with any kind of argument from Ks to Theory to DAs, I'm not fussy. Though I do have a history of not finding Topicality arguments particularly compelling unless they're well-ran and the case really is untopical.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

I'll weigh the round however you tell/convince me to, but my default is just standard Utilitarian, and caring about real, in-round abuse over the hypothetical worlds of Aff and Neg.

LD:

I care about the Value and Criterion debate, and I think you should too. I'm going to weigh the round however you convince me to weigh the round, and this can be a huge strategic advantage to whoever wins this point.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

Public Forum:

I'm paying a lot of attention to the flow and to the warrants of the arguments; I'm not a "speaking skills" style judge. (Unless you're rude or something, but that's a different issue). If you're using framework and bring it up in your final speech, make sure you explain why it gets you an advantage or why it's relevant.

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

Please Weigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tl;dr

flow judge, impact calc, speed ok but risky strategy, no blippy arguments, technicality ok but insufficient on its own

Judging Paradigm

I'm a flow judge who primarily votes on impact calculus. I can handle speed but if you speak too quickly for me to write something down, I won't consider it in my decision. I will not provide you benefit of the doubt in this situation; speed is a tactical decision on your part and you must embrace both the benefits and risks if you choose to use it. I will not consider new arguments or dropped arguments in the final speech. Don't try to lie about whether an argument was dropped; even if I end up voting for you, I will deduct a painful number of speaker points. A debate is only fair when both sides readily embrace the truth and consider the purest form of each others' arguments.

I will choose a winner by weighing arguments. I will defer to your impact calculus when you do it throughout your speeches and weigh arguments clearly. If you don't weigh arguments for me, I will decide the weights myself and you may not like what I value. There is only upside to clear impact calculus. I am receptive to arguments grounded in the real world and am not very persuaded by contentions that are super abstract or unrealistic. While I vote on impact calculus, I usually find extinction-level impacts to be a huge stretch and will likely not buy all the links required to get there. There’s a difference between impact mitigation and impact denial .

I am impressed by unique, well-crafted arguments or strongly-run stock contentions. Do not try to twist your opponents' arguments to fit whatever tag your briefs have answers to if they aren't the same thing; value your own intelligence (and the work your opponents have done) enough to come up with unique responses. Much of the value of debate comes from researching the topic, and teams that have clearly put in the work will be rewarded.

As a practical matter, you're unlikely to have spent enough time developing your contentions if you have a million points and subpoints. I would rather hear you develop a powerful three-contention case than try to overwhelm your opponents with a bunch of blippy arguments. If you want to run cases like that, policy debate is always an option. If your arguments are underdeveloped, it will be much harder to run effective impact calculus and reduces your odds of getting my ballot.

Unless the outcome is very clear, it will take me a minute to flow everything out and evaluate the impact calculus at the end of the round. I tend to be fully engaged during the round so the final decision takes a bit to figure out and write down. You can't improve without feedback and I will happily answer any questions you have about the round and my decision. If we're in a time crunch I probably won't offer you feedback immediately after the round but please come find me.

Technicality

I understand technical arguments and you should too. I want to hear you talk about solvency and topicality if it's relevant, but if you don't have a strong understanding of how these concepts apply to the arguments you're making, you're probably wasting your time. If your responses are only technical, you probably aren't engaging your opponents' contentions deeply enough to win on the flow.

I feel pretty meh about kritiks. I think the discourse has immense value in general but doing so in the debate bubble is likely preaching to the choir. I'm open to a K but am probably more interested in hearing you engage with the topic that was assigned. Unless you really impress me or tie your K to the topic in a meaningful way I will probably vote you down even though I support the discourse.

Timing

You get a few seconds to organize papers, flowpads, your laptop, and whatever before the speech but if I feel like you're biding your time I will start the timer on your speech. Roadmaps are off-time, but if you're just going say "I'll be hitting my opponents' points and then coming back to mine" don't bother; I understand the outline of a regular speech. If you call for evidence, I will not start prep time until your opponents provide you the requested materials; however, neither team should be prepping during this time. If you choose to continue prepping anyway, I will deduct that time from your prep even if it isn't your team's prep.

Behavior

I have little tolerance for rudeness but my bar for it is fairly high. Debate is a high-stress activity and the potential for misunderstanding is great, so if you're exceeding that bar I will be harsh with your speaker points. It is not hard to extend your opponents the respect they deserve for 45 minutes. Complain about them after the round in private like a normal person.

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

Brookings High School, 2016

Harvard, 2020

Round in the education topic: 0

At it's heart, I think policy debate is an educational activity meant to both foster better researchers, thinkers, speakers, and critical thinkers. Through this view, I think that discussion is best facilitated when both teams come ready and happy to debate the topic at hand, and in a way that promotes fairness and the best academic discourse about the best policy choice.

I consider myself relatively traditional when it comes to how I view an ideal policy round, so that overall can be a guiding principal when you are wondering what to read in front of me.

I value reasonable arguments more - large impacts are important, but often the ability to solve them/their likelihood is very low. Therefore, I value an impact that has a much greater chance of been solved/happening. However, with that note, teams should make an impact calc in order to get me to explain why their interpretation of magnitude, probability, and timeframe are taken into account.

Speed-reading

I don't really care for speed-reading. By all means you can talk fast, but I want to be able to hear every word of every card. The cards you pick should be important enough and worthy enough to read at an audible speed. If I can't hear the text of the card, I will probably not flow it.

Ks

In most cases, I would really prefer that a round free of Ks. That being said, I will flow them. If you want to have a chance that I will vote for it, make sure it is clear, make sure that it links well to the affirmative.

Aff Ks/Performance Affs

You came into the round knowing you were supposed to affirm the resolution, so I expect as much. The negative can justly argue that an affirmative should follow this rule in order to have a productive and educational debate.

Inherency

I love inherency, but most because it is neglected in most modern affirmative cases. I will vote neg on inherency if an affirmative team fails to provide an appropriate barrier to the plan happening in the status quo. Inherency is also really poorly understood in the debate community, so I appreciate a good inherency debate that helps highlight the the line between the affirmative and the negative ground.

Disads

Disadvantages are always a solid idea, but the more specific the better, of course, so keep that in mind. In general, each story of the DA should be started in the 2NC. You can add on impacts on the same impact story in the 2NC/1NR, but it is quite abusive to start a new impact story in the 2NC/1NR.

Theory

I will listen to theory if there is a reason for it in the round. I usually prefer non-theory related arguments, but I believe that theory is important to bring up in cases of abuse and/or to ensure that fair rules of debate are being followed in the round.

Counterplans

I think counterplans can be a great strategy, but I am not a fan of conditionality or stealing the affirmative plan text (PICs).

Topicality

I will vote on topicality, but I need to hear it debated well.

Rebekah Tuchscherer (she/her) rebekah.tuchscherer@gmail.com

B.A. in Journalism and Biology, current ophthalmic clinical researcher

• 2023: Debate Judge for Roosevelt High School (Sioux Falls, SD)

• 2018-2020: Lincoln-Douglas Assistant Coach at O'Gorman High School (Sioux Falls, SD)

• Former high school Lincoln-Douglas debater (Milbank, SD)

Public Forum

This event was created with the intention of accessibility, meaning that your speech should be 1) at a delivery rate that is easy to keep on a paper flow, and 2) use high-level debate terminology sparingly. I prefer a speed of about 4-6 on a 1-10 scale, but if I can't understand or keep up with parts of your case, it likely will not make it on my flow or be weighed in the round. Efficiency and effectiveness are key.

The debates I appreciate the most are those when debaters can recognize and articulate when apples are being compared to oranges. I don't like giving points to a team just because they have a bigger number / claim a larger impact, but can easily vote for a team that can dig into the source, organization or methodology used to get said numbers.

Rebuttals:

If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on the opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to arguments made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with strategic thinking and collapsing when necessary.

Summary/FF:

As a judge of mostly Lincoln-Douglas, I LOVE some clear voting issues. I don't think that a line-by-line argumentation style is typically necessary and prefer a nice crystalization.

Crossfire:

Good, respectful and effective cross examinations are appreciated and a great way to up your speaker points.

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans:

Please don't.

Extra Notes

• Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
• I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible.
• Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will have a mountain to climb for a win.
• Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. Please be kind. :)

Run something crazy.

Debated varsity PF in South Dakota. Have been judging for the last six years.

Evidence indict are accepted.

Specific questions about judging style are welcomed before the round begins.

If you are going to go for an evidence violation make sure it's a valid one. If I feel the violation is frivolous I will vote you down.

Best bet is to ask me any questions before the round.

I was a Public Forum debater for four years. And have spent the last five years since high school judging all forms of debate and speech. With that being said the following applies.

Speed: I do not care how fast you talk as long as what you are saying makes sense and you do not have to stop and breath because you forgot to twenty seconds ago. Speech effectively.

Eye Contact: I know you can read, but I need to know you understand what you are saying and not just reading the evidence, so eye contact is key to displaying this.

Attitude: Despite your current feelings, your opponent is not an idiot and neither are you. Treat each other with respect. Do not yet, cut each other off or simply ignore one another. At the end of the day everyone is here because they want to be, not so they can be degraded by another school. This is particularly important during Cross-X I want it clean and beneficial to everyone in the room.

Political Parties: I do not care what political party you are, I do care if you are degrading towards political leaders. For example, verbiage such as: Donald, that orange guy, or whatever else will not be accepted. He is the President and should be referred to as such. Same for senators, other world leaders and etc. With that being said, if you are a Republican or a Democrat I do not care so do not feel the need to inform me during the round.

Road Maps: I do not need an off the clock roadmap, I am capable of knowing where you are going by what you say.

And last but definitely not least,

Resolution: The resolution is the topic, or the question you were given is the topic. Stick to it and do not alter it or come up with a fancy definition that becomes abusive later in the round so then the round becomes focused on the framework and nothing else.