Um, so, like, so, ummmm, so ... yeah.

He/Him/His pronouns

Add me to the email chain or involve me in flash trades -> noodleevers@gmail.com

I guess I should put my experience here:

I debated 3 years at Appleton East in PF, competing both in state and in the national circuit. Since graduation (2-3 years now), I have coached LD mainly on the national circuit.

General beliefs

How to win my ballot

I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds (maybe that's bad, terminal defense is a thing, but I generally have a high threshold for terminal d). This has a few implications for how I make my decision. First, I love turns, especially if they are not just blips in the rebuttal. I will happily just vote on your opponents' case if you turn each of their arguments and extend those turns. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out.

Above all, I try not to intervene. I do as little work for you as possible, I flow very well, and I put a lot of thought into my decision. I judge because I like doing it and I think Public Forum specifically needs more flow judges that want to be there.

Speed

I do not care about how fast you talk in PF or local LD. For nat circuit LD, I can usually handle a 7-8 dependent on how tired or hungry I am (If it is an 8 am round, I'll prolly be a bit rusty so that that with a grain of salt). If I can't understand you, I will yell "Clear" (yeah, this almost never happens, y'all are pretty good at understanding when I'm tired). Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know.

Extensions

I guess I'm kinda picky about extensions. Just saying "extend this piece of evidence" is not gonna be enough in my eyes. I will only extend evidence that is warranted, especially if it is key to your offense.

Speaks

I will reward debaters for clarity, humor, tech skill, strategy, and topic knowledge. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance six months after the round. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average or didn't disclose :[ . 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

PF

Technical Beliefs about PF

EVIDENCE (updated 4/28/19)

- I've done a lot of thinking about evidence quality in PF specifically. I've come to the realization that paraphrasing is not just bad for the debate community (because it allows for power-tagging, misconstruing evidence, the whole shebang) it is also intellectually dishonest and should be punished. If you paraphrase cards in front of me in the constructive or rebuttal, I will regard that evidence as an analytic that has no empirical backing and you will likely get an L. If you don't have a card cut and instead pull up a pdf that makes it impossible to determine what you actually read in the round, I will also consider that an analytic and you will likely get an L. This is not negotiable. Cut cards, ask your coach the proper formatting, and PF will be much better. Strike me if you don't want to engage in norms that every other form of debate has practiced since at least the 70's.

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

SECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL

- I do not believe that that second speaking team must return and answer the entirety of the first rebuttal as the time skew is much too great. I do think that this second speaking team should adapt to the round and answer major offense that could be damning to them in the speech.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. and have had some decent experience evaluating these types of arguments in national circuit LD. Read my LD paradigm for thoughts on those more progressive arguments.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

- PF specifically needs more T/Theory arguments. Too many of y'all are getting away with really bad interpretations of debate. I am not afraid to pull the trigger on disclosure good arguments and if you're not disclosing, particularly on the national circuit, you're going to have a rough time with me at the back of the room. Spending the extra minute to disclose your positions is not that tough and has never hampered good debates in LD and Policy. I expect the same in PF.

More evidence stuff that won't cost you an L but might lower you speaks

- During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. I prefer to use an email chain at the beginning of rounds (yes, even in pf - y'all gotta stop power tagging every damn card you read), but if you don't, evidence will be exchanged off of prep time unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence if not in an email chain after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Ok, if you’re a pfer, this is where you can check out (read the bottom if y'all feel like getting some extra speaker points tho).

LD

Great, you made it this far, congrats.

Topicality

Bad topicality debates are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever. To more easily win a T debate, debaters should have two things:

1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution. This doesn't necessarily need to be carded.

2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why.

I usually don't default to reasonability but can be persuaded to fit check interps. I often find myself in debates where t isn't really an issue, but often times negatives don't realize when they are ahead on the t debate. Either way, do what you do.

Counterplans

Bad, cheaty cp's are really bad, but good ones I really enjoy hearing. Don't be afraid to go for the PIC, process, or consult CP if the aff undercovers it. Don't let my predispositions decide the debate, particularly when the flow dictates it. Counterplan theory is a good way to answer this. I default to rejecting the argument and not the debater. Also, seeing as people in state (WI) don't really run counterplans that well, I need to hear a net benefit to the aff. If you don't have that it's going to be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Theory

I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some crappy answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally, I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality). Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. I don't have your old ass condo block file in front of me like you do. If you just blow through like 5 subpoints in just as many seconds, I will probably not catch all of it. If I don't catch it, I won't be flowing the "extension" of it in later speeches.

Kritiks

Typically, I see K debates as a double-edged sword. Usually, teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:

1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves

2. A link that is specific to the affirmative

3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate; the impact debate is oft-ignored by the negative

An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

K affs

I'm cool with them. I have had limited experience running and judging k affs, so take that with a grain of salt. T/Fw is usually a good response to K Affs, but that may just be my experience speaking.

As far as clash of rev debates go, I have little experience adjudicating or debating them. I'll try to judge them as best I can and have judged a fair number of them on the LD nat circuit, but do not construe that with me being comfortable with them (though I will try my best to interfere as little as possible)

Disads

A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts to the affirmative. It's cool if they act as the net benefit to the cp or on its own. Using the DA to turn the case is prolly a good thing. I love a good politics DA debate (but this congress is weird so the link and il is gonna be crucial to win).

Phil, Skep, and the like

- yeah, so ummmm...

- This is the thing I am least comfortable adjudicating. I'll evaluate it the best I can and have voted on phil plenty of times, so don't discourage that from letting you do your thing, but ... yeah.

One last thing,

"'"If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27."- Akhil Jalan' - Kedrick Stumbris" - Joshua Evers.

- Plz put me on the email chain --> noodleevers@gmail.com

Regards,

Judge person

I have been working as a judge for school districts since 2017. As a 2016 graduate from the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, I have staffed five presidential campaigns. I also have worked in the field of public health and tutored economics. I staffed a COVID testing center for four months. I am passionate about environmental economics, and how the intersections of public health and economics have an impact on human health and wellbeing. I wrote a paper about the differences between carbon taxes and cap and trade policies during my junior year of high school, and have worked for both Kirsten Gillibrand and Tom Steyer. Gillibrand received an A- for her campaign from Greenpeace, and Steyer has been a proponent of carbon taxes. My other academic work involves performing a chi-square analysis on Brasica rapa to determine the effect of a carcinogen. I have helped coach students and also was the captain of the speech team my junior year of high school, and I competed in Student Congress. I try to judge public forum as much as possible, and have judged multiple times in a year.

Speaking

If a student is speaking too fast, I will let the student know they are speaking too fast. I can also provide time signals when students are at one, two, or three minutes. Students can speak as fast as they would like to speak.

Evaluating Speeches

I evaluate speeches based on evidence and reasoning. The role of the final focus should be to succinctly summarize an argument. The argument should be extended in the summary speech. I weigh evidence over analytics. While style is important, please recognize that rational speeches are generally stronger and my preference. Reasoning should be based on facts, and either argument can be supported if it is argued well.

I would like to see speeches that are content driven and are well-researched. In the past, I have recognized when evidence is factually incorrect. Evidence should also support the overall argument.

TLDR: My email is: christianpitsch@hotmail.com . If you have a fast speed make sure to emphasize your points to me, I flow pretty fast but I can't catch everything when you go Mach 1 and mush mouth your whole case. I really could care less what you run as long as it makes sense and is backed up by ample evidence.

Experience:

I debated in PF in High School mostly within the Wisconsin circuit and attended a few national tournaments.

Technical Beliefs about PF:

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. You must be consistent.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it. Same goes with topicality violations and the like.

Technical Beliefs about LD:

VALUES AND CRITERION/FRAMEWORK

- Generally, I see these being underused by the end of the debate. Most debaters I see simply assert that their way of framing the round is better and the only justification they have for it is just the definition of their value and criterion. In a debate you should be telling me why your interpretation of how to frame the debate is preferable. On the other side, if you are losing framework tell me why your case can still be weighed or at the very least which parts of it still can be weighed.

PROGRESSIVE LD DEBATES

- I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

Misc.

SPEED

- I am fine with speed as long as you are clear and slow down for taglines and citations. I rarely ever will tell you if your speed is too fast because only in extreme circumstances it will be and I don't like taking on a coaching job in round. Just keep in mind if you need something flowed for your argument emphasize it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction so I am familiar with the argumentation. Impact Calculus should also be used when weighing an impact.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

-In PF, often too many times I do not see teams giving enough reason to prefer their arguments over those of their opponents. Rather, people will just say, “Their evidence says this, but ours takes it out because it says this.” Weigh your arguments and give me strong reasoning to accept your claims. Give me that hard clash.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

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

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

Congress at the bottom.

PF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: I have a bachelor's degree in English education and have been teaching language arts at Sheboygan North High School for 20 years. I have coached debaters in policy, Lincoln-Douglass and public forum for 17 years, including multiple state champions. My school's emphasis is on public forum.

It is best if you think about me as a fairly well-informed member of the public to get my ballot.

As far as public forum, I appreciate being given a clear framework to weigh the impacts and other voters in the round.

Debate is an activity of communication, and speed is not effective communication. Public forum is about persuading the average American voter that your stance on the resolution is the best one.

All judges, coaches and debaters who promote speed/spread should reflect on the damage it is doing to the accessibility of the activity to prospective debaters and schools wishing to start a debate program. More skill is demonstrated by honing your arguments down to the point that they can be effectively presented in the allotted speech time rather than racing through myriad of contentions that are under-developed. Speed is not progressive; it is destroying this valuable activity.

That stated, I will listen to any arguments debaters wish to run and the speed at which they choose to speak them, even if that is not how anyone anywhere else ever speaks.

Clash is good.

Adjusting to the judge is good.

Extending your arguments with evidence and not just analytical arguments is good...but analytical arguments are also good.

I believe the rebuttals are often pivotal speeches in the entire round. I reward good ones and blame bad ones for losses, often.

Finally, despite what some public forum judges may tell you, it is not possible, in my mind, to drop arguments in pf. If it was stated, it's on my flow. You don't have to go over every single argument in every single speech for me to continue to consider it. But if an opponent fails to address a key idea, certainly point that out.

put me on the email chain

kedrickstumbris@gmail.com

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

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

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

predispositions to other things:

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

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

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

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

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

29.3+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Plz disclose otherwise I will tank thy speaks

This means put me on the email chain, email is jvogl010@gmail.com

Quick thingiesz

-“‘“‘If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27.’- Akhil Jalan” - Kedrick Stumbris’ - Joshua Evers” - Jack Vogel

- I don't care if you speak quickly, I'm fine with speed, and I prefer it to you speaking super slowly, then I will probably get bored.

-As Michael Scott said,"It's a pimple, Phyllis. Avril Lavigne gets them all the time and she rocks harder than anyone alive." What does this mean you ask? It means do whatever you do best and rock it. shaka brah. I like good arguments and explanation and execution of those arguments.

-Also plz don't get up and read your case with three minutes of spikes, if you like that kinda stuff I am not the judge for you.

-If you can make the debate fun for me I will give you higher speaks. There is a difference between making the spicy memes vs you just being rude. Don't be the latter and I will give you higher speaks.

Arguments I like most to least utilz/ policy args, K, theory/fw, tricks.

Counterplans

- I love a good CP debate and think PIC's are cool

- Your CP should obviously be competitive

Disads

-I like DA's whether they're flying solo or a net benefit to the CP.

-I like a good political debate or really any good DA/CP vs plan with good comparative analysis and weighing.

Framework

- I am comfortable evaluating fw debates and like watching fw debates that are well done, but if the debate comes down to the standard deont vs util debate I will definitely be bored.

- I don't care how you structure your fw, you can do a ROB, standard, value, etc..

- A winning strategy in front of me is not to stand up and talk about how your value is better the whole time.

Theory/T

- I default to competing interps on T because reasonability doesn't really make sense when debating topicality.

- Your T shell should have an interpretation, violation, and voter section.

- Only read theory if you have a clear abuse story and your opponent is obviously doing something sketchy/cheaty.

- I evaluate theory like I would any other argument, on an offense-defense paradigm and I dislike super frivolous theory and metatheory.

K's

- Plz don't read K's with super generic links and impacts that you took from a ten-year-old policy file. I will know and it will lower your speaks.

- Know your stuff, if you just want to run a Kritik for the lolz or because you think it will be cool, please don't. These debates are generally terrible on the end of the person who has no clue what they are talking about.

- Also, please explain your K arguments well, assume that I don't have an in-depth knowledge of whatever K you are reading. So that means that I need a clear explanation of the what the alternative does. I can't vote on your argument if I don't understand it.

Tricks/ Skep/ Other stupid arguments

PLZ no, if you like running skep, apriori's, etc... STRIKE me.

Debate Experience: Graduated 2017; 4 years of PF debate(mainly circuit) for James Madison Memorial High School - Did ok

1) Clean extensions - This means responding to every response on your relevant offense in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts fully eg: If you say the tagline or a card name - I will not flow it for you; you must explain the argument behind the tagline or card name.

2) Weighing- Weighing is the first thing I evaluate at the end of the round. Tell me where I should vote

3) Summaries and Final Focus - You can extend defense directly from first rebuttal to first final focus unless the second speaking team goes back to case in second rebuttal. All offense must be in summary and final focus.

Those three things are the most important and applicable to every debate round.

4) Speed. I'm fine with speed. I will tell you to slow down if you go fast enough for me to not be able to flow.

5) Theory/K's. I'm good with Theory and K's. You should probably not be fast with Theory arguments in front of me because it gives me less time to understand the argument.

6) Plans/CP's. I can accept plans/cp's if either your opponents don't call you out on the plan/cp or you give me a convincing reason why your particular plan/cp should be allowed in the realm of PF. For people responding to plan/cp's, saying its a plan/cp works but it would be appreciated if you implicated out why plan/cp's are bad in PF past the "its against the rules".

6) Second Rebuttal. Second Rebuttal doesn't have to go back to case. I think its strategic for you to do so. As a former first speaker whose partner didn't go back to case, summaries were often unnecessarily hard. I wish he made better choices in debate and life.

7) Dropped Arguments: Arguments are dropped after you ignore it in summary. Please collapse strategically. If you don't respond to turns on a dropped argument, your opponents can extend them. Kicking contentions/subpoints are okay as long as you do it correctly.

8) Evidence. All evidence must have author and source. eg: "Vovata of Harvard University" rather than "Vovata" or "Harvard University". I will call for evidence if either your opponent wants me to or if its extended in two different ways.

9) Dates: I think if you have time you can put dates in your case/rebuttal. If you don't, you can open up yourself to date theory. For people running date theory - tell me why it puts you in a structural disadvantage in context to the topic. Don't just cite "NSDA Rules"

10) Speaker Points: I hate the speaker point system so I give >29's to almost everyone. I also generally try to give first speakers more speaker points. Don't be rude/make up new stuff in second final focus and you should be fine.

11) Off-time road maps. I like off-time road maps. You can get pretty specific with them before your speeches.

For LD (updated 11/8/2018)

The general gist of my LD paradigm is similar to my PF paradigm. However, I will not try to impose my activity(PF) on yours. That means that any aspect of my paradigm is always up for negotiation and I'll try to keep an open mind on any argument that you guys bring to the table. Please ask if you have any specific questions about an argument or an argument type.