David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I am a former debater and current coach. When I was debating I was a Topicality and Theory debater. When I judge I tend to prefer clash over anything else.

I also prefer policy based arguments over critical positions. That being said, a well argued framework will swing me in favor of a critical position. In terms of framework I tend to prefer education based frameworks over morality or ethics based frameworks, but again a well argued moral/ethical framework is better than a poorly argued educational framework.

Topicality is an a priori issue for me, if you aren't topical I'm not allowed to vote for you. Reasonability is not a good standard for topicality so please avoid it whenever possible. Instead prove topicality in a more concrete way, or prove why a non-concrete interpretation is preferable.

Finally, please don't drop Solvency.

Overall you could say I have a policy making paradigm, but in reality I will listen to and vote on any argument as long as it is well argued, well fleshed out and well supported.

Debate Experience: I debated LD for a year in high school, and I have been judging policy debate in Wisconsin for the past two years.

In general, you’ll do best in front of me with conversational speed, clear impact, and careful explanation of the relevant issues in the round and the important impacts. I am willing to vote on almost anything, but please don’t assume that I will automatically weigh the round the way you want me to without good reasons to. I am especially interested in hearing critical impacts in the round, and have a reasonable level of familiarity with Marxist and anarchist social critique. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do other things, of course - I would love to hear strong work in many other areas, but you should make sure that you make the link and alt very clear to get my ballot.

On theory issues, I have very few pre-conceptions about “the way debate should be”, but I tend to prefer education as a terminal impact, so you will do well to explore exactly how your interpretation affects education in the round. On topicality specifically, please make the standards debate strong!

Oh, did I mention I prefer conversational speed? Take that seriously. I will ask you to clear up once before I put my pen down, and after that point, your speech time is being wasted.

Ehrlich, Miranda

About me: I debated policy in college for four years at the University of Minnesota and was a semi-finalist at the NDT in 2015. While I have many years of experience judging and coaching policy debate, it's been several years since I've judged at a tournament, and the Wisconsin State Debate Tournament is my first time judging online debate. These are also the first rounds I am judging on this topic, so please err on the side of more explanation of acronyms, key concepts, etc.

Couple of top-level comments:

--Dropped arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication – “perm do both” without an explanation of how it solves the net benefit is not a winning argument

--Impact calc is extremely important, but underutilized

--Clarity in speaking is important to me. Please strive to be comprehensible on both tags and card text!

Some specifics:

Disads – The more specific, the better, but if politics is your primary strategy, I’m a perfectly fine judge for you.

Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor international object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between.

Kritiks – Can be a viable strategy in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically to all portions of the case. I would highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”. I also like K affs that are topical, defend a real-world impact, and critique disads – especially if you can point out why the disad is contrived and silly, which it likely is. Generic postmodern K’s, on the other hand – not my cup of tea, and I’m not familiar with the lit base. On many popular K's, the link seems to be "you don't solve enough" rather than "you actively do something bad". If you can't figure out a way to phrase your link as offense and impact it, you will have a hard time winning my ballot.

Non-traditional – It is important to me that the aff explains how they solve the harms that are presented. If they fail to do this, I can be persuaded by presumption. I am skeptical of the "you don't get a perm in a method debate" argument, but could see myself voting for it if debated poorly by the other team or debated exceptionally well by the negative. Affs should be aware that I generally find a well-debated framework argument to be persuasive. When I vote against framework, it is usually because the aff convinces me that they either have a) out-teched the other team or b) that the neg has mishandled a fundamental thesis claim of the aff that interacts with framework. When I vote for framework, it is usually because the neg has both won some offense (usually with an internal link based on predictable limits) and also mitigated the case by explaining how framework can resolve it (such as T version of the aff) or through case-specific defense.

Theory – I generally think conditionality is good, but I can be persuaded to vote on it, especially if the neg has read 3+ conditional advocacies. I do, however, think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps or argue for judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so. Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Other - I will not vote for arguments that are blatantly morally reprehensible, such as racism good, sexism good, genocide good, etc.

**Less than 5 debates judged on this policy topic so no acronyms without explanation first plz**

Policy Paradigm (LD at bottom)

Currently head coach of Whitefish Bay High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin since September 2022

Graduated HS in 2014, policy debater from 2010-2014 (2N/1A) with some national circuit outround/bid round experience.

Assistant coached LD and Policy at:

Central Valley HS (Spokane, WA 2014-2016)

Capitol HS (Boise, ID 2016-2017)

Former co-head coach at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin (2017-2020)

--Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Blerickson95@gmail.com

--Overall, I am not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, and I vote for the team that quite literally makes the most sense to me. I am not afraid to take the easy way out if I am given warranted reasons why I should. The harder you make it for me, the more work you make me do, the less likely you are to get my ballot, and I think that makes sense and is fair.

--For the love, please time yourselves.

--Your speaks will increase if you don't spend at ton of time at the beginning of cross ex asking what cards were and weren't read :) (I like flowing!)

--Maybe I am just old and grumpy but, do not wear your headphones in round, at any time, once the debate starts. Not in one ear only, not because "you'e just the 1N", not because you are the 2A and don't want to listen to the 1AC. I think it's rude, pompous, and just plain obnoxious. No debater in the world is too important to listen to a full debate. It is so disrespectful to the other team, the judge, and everyone who took time to be at that debate. Ugh. I hate it so much. Headphones on during a debate are an auto 27 or lower. That's all :) *Obviously this does not carry through for online debate!

Quick version

Generally good for:

--DA-case debates

--Cheater counterplan debates

--Politics/elections debates

Not as good for:

--Heavy K debates

--Any type of death good argument (I think death is bad, and we should try to avoid it)

--Baudrillard

--Any strategy that is largely based off of debate being inherently bad/irredeemable

Online debate things:

--I would prefer if the person speaking had their camera on, but I am obviously understanding if that cannot happen.

--I keep my camera on for the debate but I turn it off during prep to go sit on my couch and hold my dog. So, please make sure, before you start your speech, I am back on the camera. If I am not and you start, that would be no good.

Longer version

General

--I, for the most part, love this activity, and respect anyone who takes the time and effort to participate. This activity is rigorous, and good for you for even being here. I welcome questions before and after the round. I realize some people won't agree with my decision, and I welcome questions as to how I came to my conclusion. However, what I don't welcome, is blatant disrespect because you disagree with my decision. Slamming your things, muttering rude things under your breath, or screaming at me, won't make me email tab begging to change my ballot. In fact, it will make me really not like you.

--I flow on paper, so I need pen time. I understand and follow the debate better this way, but that also means I am not writing everything down verbatim, so if you have arguments you think are important, sit on them.

--I am very expressive. I have tried to have a better poker face, but I simply cannot do it. You should be able to tell if I am unhappy or not.

--Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You will lose immediately and receive the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give u

--Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing/emailing (I can tell if you’re flashing/emailing or prepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll start your speech time)

--If you clip and it's recorded, you lose. It needs to be recorded.

--I will not evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Topic Thoughts

Very few judged on this topic. Plz don't use acronyms without explaining them first.

K debate

--The role of the judge is to decide who did the best debating. The role of the ballot is to tell Tabroom who won.

--Fiat isn't real and that's fine.

--This is my area of less familiarity. Although I have fairly frequently found myself in the back of clash of civ debates, I am less familiar with critical arguments. IR K's such as cap, security, gender, etc. I do not have a problem understanding. I have a harder time understanding high theory, philosophy debates. Pleeease do not assume I have read your author. Do not let this dissuade you from reading your bread and butter K arguments in front of me, just know I need more explanation. I think in good debates this can even just be done in a cross ex.

--I need a reason why the aff is bad. I often find myself voting on the perm because I do not know why the aff is specifically bad for causes more bad things to happen. I am not saying this can't be done, it definitely can be done, and should be.

--I am not here to change how you debate, but it would be disingenuous for me to say my experiences in debate have not affected how I am used to and comfortable evaluating debates. That being said, I tend to think speech times are good, and an hour and a half of discussion is not as good. If we are going to throw speech times out the window, I need to know what the structure is for the remainder of the debate. I.e. when we are done, how I should evaluate arguments in this new format, etc. If there is no structure, I need to know why not having a structure for the debate is good. I do my very best to not intervene, and if the debate devolves into a discussion, the only time I will intervene is to say when time is up for the round. It would be GREAT if that was done for me by one of the teams. I try to talk in debate rounds *literally* as little as possible but I also do not want to make the tournament run behind.

--I have evaluated many framework debates, but I think I am about even voting for and against it. That being said, I think predictable limits are my point of most persuasion. But do what u do.

K affs

--I need to know what the aff does. I just do.

--I do not necessarily need you to defend hypothetical USfg action, but I really appreciate topic relevance.

Theory

Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. If you drop these things, you lose*: Conditionality, ASPEC. Flow! Don't just follow the speech doc! Ask what reasons are to reject the team in cx!

*I think sometimes cross applications are sufficient. Or aff outweighs arguments for critical affs. It literally just depends how the debate shakes out, but I would just try to answer them explicitly the first time.

I think fairness can be an internal link or an impact depending on how you spin it. Tell me how you want me to view and evaluate fairness.

Topicality

I have recently realized that I take a little more than the average person to vote on T. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. Slow down on T debates plz.

For me to vote on topicality, I need: a topical version of the aff (doesn't need to solve the aff, it just needs to show an alternate, topical version of the discussion), a list of topical aff's under your interpretation, a list of what you were deprived of in the debate because of the aff's untopicality OR a reason why I should vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans

I’m a big fan. Counterplans should be competitive and have a solvency advocate, in my perfect world. But hey, I am becoming more and more okay with counterplans that do not have a solvency advocate for some reason.

The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise. I really like smart pics/word pics.

My mantra has always been, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. Cheating counterplans can get the job done and if there is no theoretical objection to reject the argument, you may be in trouble. That being said, compelling reasons why that specific cheating counterplan is bad can sometimes convince me to reject the argument. Again, it's ~debatable~

*The only counterplan I think is silly and likely won't vote for is a PIC out of the ballot. Never got it, never will, likely will always think it's silly.

Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the federal government key? Also, I would really like if permutations were more than just "Do both" at the end of the debate, but if the neg never presses you on what this means, I will likely give the aff a lot of leeway throughout the debate on what that means/how it functions. This is important--negative teams are deciding what the permutation is and how it functions for the aff and it is just destroying the aff. Tell me what your perm means and how it functions, if you let the neg do it for you I can bet it won't turn out well for you.

I am hearing a lot of "perm shields the link to the net benefit so it solves". WHY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY. HOW. WHY AND HOW. I am begging you to give me some sort of permutation explanation.

That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it. I will kick the counterplan for the negative, if it's conditional, unless I am given a reason not to by the aff.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage has: uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. 2 card disads make me sad and I am immediately skeptical of them.

Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are basically necessary to my ballot. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff.

Case

Engage the case! Do case debate!

LD Paradigm

I debated at two LD tournaments in high school: Nat quals and NFL (now NSDA?) nationals my junior year. I coached LD for 3 years before coming to Homestead. I have coached/judged very traditional, value-criterion LD debate, and I have also coached/judged progressive LD debate. I am truly fine with either. For more progressive LD debate, my policy paradigm applies. A couple caveats:

--T or theory is not an RVI. I realize the time skew in LD debate. T or theory is not an RVI. I will vote on theory, just not silly ones.

--Shorter speeches than in policy, so I think a bunch of short off-case positions are less preferable than less, more in-depth off-case positions. But do what u need to do.

--Tricks? nah

--Meta-theory? nah

--Cutting evidence from debate blogs? nah

--In-depth, educational debates about the topic? Yeah!!!

Have fun!! :)

I'm relatively new to Policy Debate. I consider myself a "tabula rasa" (TABS) judge. There are three things I give the greatest weight towards when I evaluate:

(1) Impacts

(2) Sign-posts

(3) Speaker skills - I appreciate clarity and reasonable speed. If I can't understand your arguments, I can't effectively evaluate you!

School: Stevens Point Area Senior High (WI)

Experience: I've got three years of high school debate experience, I'm the assistant coach of the SPASH debate team, and this is my second year judging.

I'm a tabs judge but I have a few preferences:

T: I'll always look to competing interpretations, and you should throughly explain your standards/voters. In round abuse will be more persuasive
Kritiks: I'll default to a policy framework if none is presented, so I guess I'm a little biased against Kritiks but if you win the framework flow I'm down. Also I have probably a higher standard for alt solvency.

Impact calc/ framing the round is key. In the end I'll vote on anything, but you need to tell my why I'm signing my ballot.

email me at dgord325@uwsp.edu if you have any questions

Background: debated for Rufus King High school for 4 years, debated nationally and stuff. Have worked with the likes of Charles Anthanospolous, Corinne Sugino, Darryl Burch, Joe Leduc, Jared Atchinson, Devane Murphy, and others. This is my first year out of high school as of 2017, and is my first year judging but have had plenty of experience both coaching and debating at tournaments like Harvard, Niles, New trier, Glenbrooks, etc where I have broken as with a novice partner. My particular expertise is in black theory and identity politics.

K Affs: Love em but my main gripe with K Affs is the lack of explanation of the aff and what it does. You must have a clear topic link, thesis, and solvency mech. Do not make the debate difficult for yourself or me.

Performance Affs: Same as above but please explain the importance of the performance, don't just have a performative aspect of the 1ac for show, it has intrinsic value to the 1ac, show it.

Ks: I love K debate but will not do the work for you. Explain the link, impact, alt, etc. Do K tricks, make it fun but most of all do you.

Policy affs: like most, I started with policy, I'm not the best judge for these type of rounds but can make a clear decision. I need impact calc which more then often becomes the deciding factor for a rnd.

Topicality: EXPLAIN THE ABUSE AND USE IN ROUND EXAMPLES OF ABUSE. too often people run T and don't go for it, I love it as an argument and if you're not confident going for it, don't run it in front of me.

Framework: I'm absolutely fine with it, please explain why your framing of debate is net better than the affs, win your impacts and don't let the aff get away with snakey arguments. I found arguments about the ballot, the aff being inaccessible, and terminal impacts as the most persuasive.

In rnd stuff:

--Spreading: I'm fine with, just make sure you enunciate. Will only say clear once.
--Flashing: I don't take prep unless the amount of time you're taking is gratuitous.
--Don't be rude yo, show respect
--Open cross x: yes always
-- I don't tolerate gendered, racist, abelist, etc. Language. Yall be getting away with too much sometimes yo, just be chill.
--- all in all, have fun and do you or don't, ion really care tbh.

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

Brice Hansen

PGPs: he/him, they/them (no preference)

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

as of 10/28/21
About me:
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my 8th year of judging/assistant coaching. I graduated from UW-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in political science focusing on political theory and ideology and a minor in math education. Currently I am a Graduate student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities in a Social Studies Master's Degree and Teacher Licensure program.

Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you have and can explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, then for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go or be evaluated.


Specifics:

Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points

Please include me in the email chain: bricedhansen@gmail.com

Arguments: I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are arguments/authors I will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

Delivery: In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, I might actively refuse to acknowledge any of them because I think it's malpractice and absolutely and laughably ridiculous. So just like don't do that, you're better than that.

Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs, performance affs, and kritikal affs. In fact, I'd encourage you to test one out or run one. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff. If you want to win on T, framework, or a call of abuse it has to be the focus of your last rebuttal and evident, otherwise I won't give it much weight in what the round came down to.

Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.

Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.

Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is well beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the negative block and isn't the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.

In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rulemonger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question, if you don't ask them about it then go for a-spec you are actively wasting everyone's time and it's clear as glass. 

DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.

CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.

Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, make it constructive though and remember not every K is exclusive to others.

Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I may be the judge but I don't set the rules of debate, I just have a say over what is fair. If you feel that the resolution is insufficient for the moment as the aff then go beyond and make the case why the resolution isn't enough, the debate space is a space for advocacy and the discussion of ideas so it's vital to have that discussion here. Just don't mistake settling for the resolution and presenting a plan as the end of one's advocacy, dual power is an important praxis and there may be many other plans a team may wish to advocate for but only can pick one for this space.

Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.

Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is probably how I will be evaluating the round if it's pulled through in every speech. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.

I have a tendency to see the 2NR and 2AR as speeches that narrow down each side to their final arguments. It's not that 1R's are less important they're like the staging grounds for the final arguments, but if you intend to win on something then bring it up in the 2R. I don't want to vote on something you aren't convinced you won on, and if you are convinced you won an argument and are convinced that it should win you the round, it better be in the 2R.

Hot takes:

If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious.

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

Saying Cap is as good as it gets is gonna take some work for me

impacts that don't lead or focus on extinction are more reasonable and more likely. People suffering is an impact by itself, any impact chain that extends from there is usually indefinite speculation or hyperbole that detracts from actual suffering that is more likely to happen and is ongoing. That's not to say worse impacts don't spiral from chains of events, but that most of the time there is a minimum definite impact of suffering.

Hutchison, Casey

About Me:

I debated PF for four years at Middleton and coached/judged PF and Policy in the Madison area for five years after that. I dropped out of the debate community for a while after moving to DC and Minneapolis, but I'm back in Madison now and excited to be coaching and judging again. I work as a policy analyst for the federal government (HUD).

Speed:

I can flow fast arguments (not to spreading level though) if you speak clearly. I'd prefer you err on the side of fewer arguments but easier to understand. Please slow down on tags and citations. I don't typically give cues if you're speaking too fast, especially in virtual debates.

Evaluating the Round:

I prefer arguments over style, but style does matter in terms of speaker points - see that section below. In Final Focus, please clarify the most important arguments, how you won them, and why they matter. Give me a way to weigh your arguments against your opponent's. If you plan to go for an argument in Final Focus, please don't drop it in rebuttal and summary.

At the end of the debate, I look at my flow and circle the arguments that each team won. Then I use the weighing mechanisms each team gave me in their last speeches to decide which are the most important, have the biggest impacts, etc. I typically weigh evidence more highly than analytics, but both are important - 2-3 good, well-warranted pieces of ev with a clear logical thread wins over a 10-card dump any day. Please explain things really clearly to me - Why does your argument outweigh? Why is it important that your opponent dropped something? What does the card that you're extending prove?

Speaker Points/Ranks:

Speaking skills, politeness, structure, persuasiveness, etc. are very important to me. Please DO NOT be rude or aggressive toward your opponents. It should go without saying, but do not lie to me by saying something was dropped when it wasn't or by using false or manipulated evidence. It also bothers me when speakers go over their allotted time by more than ~5 seconds, and I reflect repeated over-time speeches against your speaker points.

Other Notes:

Don't just read cards at me - explain why they matter.

I love when teams compare the pro and con worlds.

I coached policy for a while, so I'm willing to dip toes into weird arguments. Just make sure you explain everything clearly and ensure you actually clash and engage with your opponent's case.

Signpost everything! If you didn't tell me where to write something on my flow, I'm searching for the right spot rather than listening to what you're saying.

I'm always happy to answer questions, talk after rounds, even go through the whole flow if you want! What's most important to me is that everyone enjoys themselves and learns something.

About me:

-I use He/Him pronouns

-I debated for 3 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin on the Surveillance, China, and Education topics. All three of them were in Policy although I did do a bit of PF my first year.

-I'm have a B.S. from UW-Madison in Econ, Environmental Studies, Mathematics, and Stats and a MA in Economics from the University of Chicago

-Email: jerimiah.koll@gmail.com

-put me on the email chain, it saves time so in the situation I need to look at a card at the end of the round I don't need to steal one of your laptops to get it. (especially if its remote)

General:

Tell me how to vote and why and I'll do it as long as you do a good job explaining. That being said there are some things that require a little more work than others so take note of them below. When you extend cards/args you need to actually explain the thesis of the card and show you understand the arguments you're making, reading another card really doesn't do you any favors, pulling out warrants from your first card does much better.

If your making a fairness arg I like actual examples, hypothetical abuse or potential abuse aren't great arguments to make. That being said I generally prefer the educational value to the debate above fairness.

The more realistic your scenario is the more likely I am to vote for it. Your impacts don't have to be nuclear war causing mass extinction and I'd prefer if they weren't. Instead of nuclear war impacts use real world impacts because nuclear war isn't going to happen, if it does you can tell me "I told you so".

I'm good with speed, just try to be clear, I can't flow stuff I didn't hear. If you drop 10 perms in 30 seconds there's a good chance I miss 8 of them just like the other team. You gotta slow down for tags, perms, and the like. Also make sure you signpost so I know what flow I'm putting stuff on, if you leave it up to me there's a chance it ends up on the wrong flow. In general, going about 10% slower than your top speed is a great way to get amazing speaks and have me actually flow what you're saying. This is especially important for when you're debating online.

I didn't judge at all last year so do with that info what you will

Just because I'm on the email chain doesn't mean I'm gonna comb through your cards looking for warrants, its your job to tell me the warrants from your cards.

Random Preferences:

Topicality: I rarely ran or enjoyed T when I was debating which is a shame because I think T has the potential to be a really interesting debate but it just hasn't in my experience. You'll need to go all in on T in the 2NR to win on it, and it really helps to cite actual abuse that destroys neg ground. I'll be much more sympathetic to a team running T against a clearly untopical plan than if you're just running T as another arg. If you say "we didn't have prep on this aff" and then have case args blocked out anyway its unlikely I'm gonna vote for you. I really don't like super nitpicky T, so substantial T is unlikely to get my vote.

Ks: I really like when I have a clear picture of what the alt is and it makes it much easier for me to vote on Ks when you do that work instead of expecting me to decipher what the alt is. I ran a lot of Cap, Bio-power, Militarism, and Fem Theory and have a fair amount of experience with Enviro and Set Col lit. I have some experience with more obscure/esoteric Ks but if you have to ask if I know the lit, I probably don't. In order to win on the K you have to show me you understand what exactly the K is doing and explain the theory behind it, if you can't you're gonna lose.

Framework: I really like framework debates and its probably the most important flow in the round. If you win the framework flow there's a good chance you win the round because you just told me to prioritize your impacts. You need to show a clear understanding of both frameworks and do a good job explaining why yours is the best/leads to the best outcome to win framework. I generally default to some sort of utilitarianism, not because I'm particularly utilitarian, but its the framework that most teams implicitly use.

"Climate change isn't real/not a threat/not anthropogenic": So this isn't a great arg in the first place so I'm not sure why people like to run it but I've seen far more of it than I care for. Its highly unlikely I vote for this, the other team would have to drop the ball completely for me to say climate change isn't real. If the other team runs this arg, you should use it as an independent voter, so running climate change isn't real is a reason that team should lose.

CX: Open but its still their speech, asking all the questions for your partner will get both of you poor speaks.

Paper 1ACs: if y'all are gonna spend the rest of the round on your laptops you're wasting paper and time as a fun little strat. Don't. If you don't email it out at the end of the 1AC I will drop you.

PF:

I have much less experience with PF than Policy but don't let that stop you from running what you want to. I may have been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of teams in PF adopting speed. I understand the strategic implications of speed and all that but everything I said about speed in Policy applies doubly so in PF, you should speak 10-20% slower than your top speed given how heavy on analytics PF is.

Please keep cross civil, also remember that cross is still a speech so keep the first two (mostly) closed.

Topicality: Although I am not a fan of topicality, I will vote on it. However, I am more likely to vote on topicality if the negative is able to prove in-round abuse. If the negative is able to garnish specific links, it is going to be pretty difficult to prove loss of ground or fairness in order to claim abuse. This is generally how I also vote on theory.

Disadvantages: I will vote on a disad if the negative can prove that the impacts of the disad outweigh the solvency or at least risk of solvency of the affirmative. I believe that the internal link of a disad is a must. It’s difficult to make the leap from some generic or somewhat generic link to some large, terminal impact like nuclear war or extinction; there needs to be an internal link that ties the link and the impact. I also believe that uniqueness is essential, in the sense of how the affirmative plan uniquely triggers the link to the disad. Affirmatives are generally more likely to win a disad by running offense on the disad flow; just a suggestion.

Kritiks: I am kind of in love with K’s and tend to vote on them more often than not. I think that K’s are important in the sense that they tend to raise larger questions about the world that we live in, and the policies we are discussing. They engage in the mindset or framework behind these policies, as well as how these policies perpetuate or worsen the status quo, regarding issues like discrimination, racism, sexism, oppression, poverty, etc. If a negative is able to prove that critiquing these assumptions are good, I’m likely to buy the K framework, or at least weigh it against the policy framework of the affirmative. I think it’s important that the affirmative use the 1AC as a resource for showing solvency of the harms of the K. Like a disad, the affirmative should be making uniqueness claims on the K, questioning the marginal increase in disadvantage of the status quo via enactment of the policy change, comparative to the solvency of the affirmative advantages; if the affirmative is able to prove that isn’t reason enough to reject the affirmative, I’m likely to vote affirmative. I am not a fan of reject the affirmative alternatives, there needs to be more depth, more analysis to the alternative; or give me some analysis why rejecting the affirmative is key, ie. in-round solvency, role of the ballot claims, etc.

Counterplans: A counterplan should be competitive; meaning it should be mutual exclusive of the 1AC, and should include a net benefit. Without a net benefit, the CP is not competitive, and I have no reason to vote for the CP over the affirmative plan; this pretty much comes down to the impact debate again on the net benefit versus the affirmative plan.

Framework: I think framework is a must when it comes to K’s and performance cases. You need to make it clear to me how to frame the round, why I should prefer one framework over another. I also think it is essential to impact framework, within the round, as well potential implications outside of the round.

Todd Le— Policy

updated 1/12/22 (for WSDT)

School Affiliation: Homestead High School (lol rip) (2012-2020); LaCrosse Central (2022)

Position: stressed med student

If you have questions about an RFD feel free to e-mail at: todd241 (at) gmail (dot) com - put me on the chain btw

I know prefs suck so I'ma try to make this as painless as possible. Am I qualified to judge your debate? Probably not - I've forgotten everything about debate

Do my argument ideas align with yours? I don't think that really matters but my time away from the activity has me leaning towards familiarity which is heavily policy leaning compared to K leaning. That said, if you are a K team that doesn't mean my ballot is automatically signed, but it does mean you will have to explain concepts to me like I'm 5. I'll vote on whatever - I just need to know what I'm voting for and the ROB to be evident. Overviews? - pls. Impact Calc? FFS please do.

If you have questions about specific arguments ask me before round - no guarantee my answers will be helpful though

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

New Section for LD:

I am new to LD and a lot of my debate opinions are derived from policy debate - most of the items below should still apply. Good with speed, Theory, Ks, plan, etc. Feel free to ask specific questions.

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

Overview Tech > truth

Counterplans I have no idea what CPs look like on this topic but general things: PICs are fine, theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team, judge kick is fine, isolated net bens in 2NR is v good, severance perms are rarely reason to reject the team.

Disadvantages/Advantages Line by line is key, overview when necessary, impact calc is one of the only objective ways for me to weigh a round so if all is lost gimme some impact calc to work with pls and thank you. Affirmatives kicking the aff and going for turns on disads is one of the most chad things to do and will be looked upon favorably.

Topicality & Theory I've never seen a good theory 2NR/2AR that I like, or one that I thought was well done. I'm fine with most theory arguments but make sure you tell me how to use it i.e justification to reject the team or reject the arg. I'm fine with theory being run in the 1AR/block if it's justified. My threshold voting for T gets lower as seasons go on and people want to try and be more cheaty and dumb.

Kritiks The only thing worst than bad debate is bad K debate. The K is a unique tool that can be used effectively, but 2NCs of 5 min overviews and 3 mins of line by line referring to the overview is boring to listen to. Clean line by line on the K is good. Isolate the -ology debate (epis/onto/etc.) for me since it's been a while since I've seen these args.

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a pretty frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind.
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/K Affs-I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Whom This May Concern,

I am a second year judge, excited to be part of the debate community. Consider me a "Tab" Tabula Rasa Judge - open to clear and concise arguments. At this point I am requesting "signposts" and "roadmaps" from the contestant to best follow along.

My focus is on Your "Presentation Style", expecting your body language and clear communication style to support your debate arguments. I cannot judge fast & rambling speaking, so please slow down and make your case clear with convincing arguments presented with confidence.

Good Luck!

I debated both policy and PF in High School mostly within the Wisconsin circuit and attended a few national tournaments. This is my third year of judging but I had little experience last year. My email is jeff.rademaker95@gmail.com

I favor traditional policy arguments and am a big fan of large impacts. As far as critical debate goes, I never had much experience with it and in general do not like it. That being said, I won’t automatically vote against more progressive arguments but please understand that I am not very qualified to evaluate them.

In PF I often don’t see a whole lot of weighing of evidence, rather many times debaters contradict their opponents arguments without giving me reasons to prefer their evidence/argument. Also, I’ve noticed that impact calculus is often underutilized. Make sure that you extend any offense that you want me to vote on throughout the entirety of the round. Otherwise, I will not weigh it.

I rarely ran framework when I debated. In LD, if the framework flow is under-covered and there is little clash going on, I likely won't consider it when deciding the round. This is especially the case when it's not referenced within the contentions on case throughout the rebuttals.

A few minor thoughts:

-I’m fine with speed, just make sure you are clear and slow down for your tags and citations.

-If the room is empty, you don't need to wait for me, just head inside.

-Always disclose if your opponent asks you to.

Teressa Shaw

Current Affiliations: None

Past/Debated: Rufus King High School

Pre-Round

My predispositions about particular arguments should not influence what you run (with a caveat). I have not judged ANY rounds on this topic.

I honestly believe that you should run the arguments you are comfortable with. Am I better for certain types of rounds? Maybe. Does that mean you should try a completely new strategy? If you want.

I have experience with most arguments so I believe you should run the arguments you know. Feel free to ask before round if you have any concerns about arguments. I'm currently working on updating my paradigm to include argument specific thoughts.

I will also try to leave biases out of decision-making as much as possible, but I am far from perfect.

I really really really dislike judge intervention. It makes me feel gross. Please don't put me in situations where I have to intervene aka situations where it isn't clear what I should vote on. Make it clear what arguments you think are most important and do the analysis yourself. In rounds where I have had to intervene, everyone was very unhappy so tell me what you think I should vote on.

Stealing prep will result in a loss of speaker points. Clipping cards will result in a loss and zero speaker points.

Being excessively rude irritates me greatly (and costs speaker points...). I think there is a distinction between assertive/confident and condescending. If you win the round, I'll vote for you but your speaker points will suffer.

Please add me to the email chain.

Background

I debated policy for four years with stronger background in critical/theory. Broke at nats/speaker in t20s //all sorts of irrelevant stuff. Researcher in immunology lab. I now judge -very- occasionally.

Logistics

I have thoughts about particular arguments and it's probably better to ask before round if you are concerned. I highly recommend this for any judge because, in my experience, folks tend to deviate away from paradigms.

I'm a terrible judge for science not real. However, I think discussions of science being bad are great (ex. the theft of HeLa cells demonstrating how horrible institutions have been).

Ks: Don't assume I know exactly what your argument or kritik means (even if you think you explained it well...).This would imply that I am willing to do work for you which I won't. That being said, I feel more comfortable evaluating these rounds than I would a round that came down to a politics disad. I like creative arguments, but have seen more teams fail to win on framework/theory debates in front of me.

T/FW/Theory: Yeah I group these things together if that tells you anything. I end up voting on these issues a lot more than I would expect. I'm not a fan of RVIs, but will listen to them if cheating is present. I haven't been compelled to vote on one yet.

I am probably better for critical rounds (especially if is critical race, gender, and/or queer theory) than old school policy but have done and understand both.

I can't specify whether I firmly "believe" in truth vs tech or tech vs truth because it rarely comes down to one of these things. However, I observe tech >> truth in my decisions.

If I am left wondering what I am voting for after the 2AR, I tend to vote neg on presumption if the neg has done a decent job of interacting with the aff.

While "debate is a game", I think there is room to make the game better. I have seen some really creative affs/strategies, but I have also seen affs/args written to avoid debating at all. I end up voting on fairness/ground more than I'd like to in rounds like that.

If you think something may be offensive, it often is.

Clash is important for many reasons. Engage the aff.

Don't steal prep, don't clip cards, and don't cheat. I expect students to time themselves and each other. Prep ends with the flash drive leaves the laptop. If it becomes a problem, then I will start the timer and I will be diligent. (**I will make prep exceptions in virtual debates if necessary).

Speaking fast is fine. Speaking clear is better.

Silva, Oscar
Policy Preference Information

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

I debated for four years in high school on the Minnesota circuit, making it to state and nationals a few times. I am fine with speed, but you MUST be understandable. If I can't tell what you are saying, chances are it won't be on the flow and someone will be upset. I have no preference towards policy/critique based debate, just prove to me why you should win. An easy way to get the ballot is to do impact analysis. Please do not be rude during cross ex, or in any other part of the debate. Tag team cross ex is fine. I don't have any objections to arguments, so juts read what you think you can win on.

Speed - When I say that I am fine with speed, I mean that I can handle pretty much any speed, I just prefer clarity. If you are SO unclear that I can't flow you, you will notice when I stop. I will also give verbal warnings if it becomes a problem. Compared to most other judges, I like to consider I have a pretty high threshold for that point.

Quick Version - Everything is debatable. I will do my best to keep myself out of the round as much as possible. I went for both policy and critical arguments when I debated so I don't really have a preference, although I am probably better oriented with policy oriented rounds. Remember that my preferences are always available for negotiation (besides the things listed in the "unacceptable" section) so do what you do and PLEASE don't try and conform to whatever things I put on here.

Other Meta level things - I am a tech oriented judge, a good analytical argument beats a bad card everyday of the week. I also believe that 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. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. 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. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department because multiple counterplans make it strategic suicide for the aff to make their best answers and forecloses a real search for the "best policy option." 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 grant the aff a lot of leeway on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. I also grant the aff a lot of leeway about why short term extinction claims should come before questions of the K structural impacts. However, I appreciate well run Ks, and ran a fair amount of Ks when I debated, so if it is your thing, do it well.

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.

UNACCEPTABLE - Cheating (obviously). This includes scrolling down on the speech doc ahead of where people are reading, clipping cards, cross reading, the whole shebang. If I catch you doing this, I will assign you a loss and minimum speaker points. Hint: It is pretty obvious when people are clipping cards.

Paperless - I will stop prep time when the jump drive is ejected from the computer. Do not abuse me being lenient with such problems. If I notice you flowing the speech doc instead of the round, I will probs tank your speaks. It seems to be that a lot of debaters don't even listen to speeches of other debaters anymore. Listen to the other team and flow what they are saying, after all, debate is a communication activity.

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)

Standard Scale
26 (or below) - You did not speak well. You may have been mean to your partner of the other team. You need work.
26.5 - Below average. You have more work to do and more room to increase.
27 - Slightly below average, but not too bad overall.
27.5 - Average Speaker.
28 - Above average. You spoke well.
28.5 - Good. You may good strategic decisions and probably won the round.
29 - You are a talented debater and will probably be within the top 20 speakers at the tournament.
29.5 - You will probably be in the top 10 speakers at the tournament, won the round and I loved some aspect of your speech to a large extent.
30 - Your speeches were the best 13 minutes of my life

I am a student at UW-Madison in the middle of my sophomore year. I graduated from Reagan High School, where I competed with the debate program for all 4 years. I consider myself a tabs judge. Any presented arguments must be relevant to the case at hand, especially regarding K's and T. I am not a fan of speed and will be looking for clear and concise impact calculus, particularly regarding link chains, throughout the round.

Short Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My preferred form of address is "Warchief!"

Thank you!

LONG VERSION

General Paradigm

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

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

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

Disads

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

T

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

Ks

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

K Affs

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

Speaks

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

Overall, Have fun.

Noah Trilling
noah.trilling@gmail.com

Background

I did policy debate from 2003-2007 (Oceans-Service) at Sheboygan North High School with Jon Voss (currently coaching at Glenbrook South High School) In 2007-2008 (Poverty) I was an assistant coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI under head coach Bill Batterman (currently coaching Woodward Academy) In 2008-2009 (Energy) I was the head coach of Brookfield Central High School. From 2009-2013 I judged frequently at National and Regional Tournaments.

Overview
Paradigm-Tabula Rasa: I’m an open-minded critic but, like everyone, I have certain argument preferences. Don’t let my personal argument preferences alter your strategy, however. You should run arguments based on your pretournament preparations and the arguments you hear in the debate. The arguments that you feel most comfortable with and believe are appropriate for the round will be your best arguments. I’d rather hear arguments you’re familiar with than have you alter your strategy and not know the evidence. I will evaluate all arguments presented in the debate and attempt to minimize judge intervention (to things like mischaracterizing evidence, cheating, etc).

Delivery: Since I've been out of practice evaluating debates for a while now, I've come to prefer evaluating slower debates with more comparative evidence analysis than rounds won by spreading the other team out of the debate. If you are speaking very quickly it is possible I will miss some nuances of your analytics. You need to slow down and highlight these arguments or I may miss them.

Evidence Quality: Researching high quality evidence, explaining warrants effectively, and executing case-specific strategies is the surest way to win in front of me. At the end of the debate I almost always call for evidence. If you are overstating the quality of your evidence or mischaracterizing its claims I might simply disregard it entirely. You are absolutely responsible for providing truthful evidence from qualified sources that accurately represents the nature and scope of your claims.

How to Win
Topicality: I find reasonability claims a bit illogical and unfair in the same way that I find “Counterinterpretation: Only our case is topical” illogical and unpredictable. Any offensive reason that you are "reasonably topical" should be applied as a standard for a definition that includes your affirmative. Alternatively you can spin these arguments as offense against the negatives interpretation. If you can not meet the negatives interpretation AND you can not provide an interpretation with sufficient offense to win the debate, I fail to see why the affirmative should win a topicality debate. Although competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, the affirmative still has the burden of providing a reasonable, predictable interpretation that includes the affirmative. Instead of making vague claims about reasonability, invest time in how your counterinterpretation is grounded in a literature base, preserves core affirmative cases or preserves negative counterplan, kritik and disadvantage ground.

That being said, I don’t like voting on topicality. I’d much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than deal with absurd distinctions on the definition of increase or substantial that have no effect on the division of ground. Negatives need to spend a substantial amount of time in the block and the 2NR explaining the significance of the violation in terms of specific ground and education losses or prove an instance of abuse in the round.

Theory: I am growing increasingly disturbed by the proliferation of blatantly non-competitive plan-inclusive counterplans designed to conform to generic disadvantages (spending, politics, etc). Negatives need to be more creative, plan case-specific strategies and cut advantage counterplans instead of avoiding debating the case.

However, like topicality, I would much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than vote on cheap shot theory arguments. PICs are one of the few theory arguments I have strong feelings about. I also typically find theory as a reason to reject an argument, not the team. Especially with PICs though winning theory can be a significant blow to the 2NR’s impact calculus.

Kritiks: Kritiks are excellent when they are executed properly. However, it is important that you are able to explain the significance of your impact, especially if it is operating outside the traditional utilitarian/policymaking framework. You also need to explain how the alternative functions to overcome the status quo and solve the 1AC.

Many teams have difficulty answering kritiks and I don’t understand why. Kritik alternatives tend to greatly overstate the impact of their adoption. Its important for affirmative teams to highlight the specificity of 1AC solvency evidence to create solvency deficits to the alternative. Instead of allowing kritik hacks to dominate the internal link debates, remind me of the practicality of the affirmative and its ability to create incremental positive change.

Counterplans: Counterplans need to be functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. As I noted above, I am not a big fan of a lot of Generic PICs. Most generic PICs cede too much of the solvency and impact debate to the affirmative. At the same time, PICs rarely capture the intent and the specificity of the 1AC cards, leaving the negatives with a solvency deficit. Instead of running generic PICs to capture 1AC solvency evidence, run advantage counterplans or case specific PICs with specific solvency evidence, internal net-benefits, case-specific disadvantages and impact turns on case.

Disadvantages/Case: I generally file all globally cataclysmic events (environmental collapse, nuclear war, extinction, etc) in the same category of terrible fates. To win you should emphasize probability in impact analysis. Having high quality evidence and extrapolating their warrants will go a long way to convince me of the probability of your impact scenarios. Focusing on smaller impact scenarios is a great way to distinguish your plan from the solvency claims in PICs, big disadvantages, and kritik impact turns and alternatives.

Speaker Point
30/29.5-Perfect/Excellent: A perfect or nearly perfect performance.

29/28.5-Above Average: A good performance that combines technicality, strategic execution, and impressive evidence quality. These speakers should be in contention to break and receive a speaker award.

28/27.5-Average: This indicates an average performance. I would give these to a team with sufficient technical skills and execution to win the debate, but perhaps not in contention to clear or win a speaker award.

27/26.5-Below Average: This indicates a poor performance such as a major strategic error or technical error that had an effect on the outcome of the debate. These will usually be given to a losing team that struggled throughout the entire debate or a debater who made an especially serious strategic error.