Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 16 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2022-23: 7 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

1. I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
2. Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
3. I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
4. If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
5. If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

1. Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
2. Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
3. I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
4. Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
5. Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
6. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

Judging policy debate since 2012

-I am a tabs judge

-I am evaluating the flow and logic of your arguments

-Help me to follow your arguments by providing signposts

-OK with speed if you provide a synopsis of each card

-Prove abuse on topicality

-Explain how your DA links to the plan

-Tell me how your CPs advantages and how it is unique

-If you run framework, please explain how your argument fits into it

-Provide me with impact and reasons to vote at the end of the round.

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.

Background: In college I debated on the national circuit for parliamentary debate. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate. I currently serve as the assistant coach for Marquette University High School. I have previously served as the head coach for Ronald Reagan College Prep and an assistant coach for Solorio Academy High School.

E-Mail Chain: Yes. Send to bjs.debate@gmail.com. (Note: asking me if I want to be on the e-mail chain is usually a sign that you didn't read my paradigm before the round. It is right here at the top...)

Quick Philosophy: I strongly favor a policy making philosophy. Ideally the AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.

Quick Tips:

1. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you.
2. Do not argue a tagline. Argue the logic and evidence.
3. Maintain clash. Line by line is good.
4. Identify voting issues.
5. Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
6. Do not be rude. Be witty. (Wit = speaker point bumps)
7. Have fun.

Longer Philosophy:

- Planless Aff: If the AFF isn't affirming any specific plan, advocacy or course of action, then the status quo doesn't change. Assuming NEG makes that argument, NEG wins on presumption.

- Tech v Truth: I try to prefer tech to truth. Like all judges I attempt to avoid intervention, and a dropped argument is a true argument.

- Links: I do not think enough scrutiny is usually given to link arguments or link chains. I am a big fan of strategies that attack internal links or the link of a disadvantage/K/etc.

- Advantages and Disadvantages: You need to perform an impact calculus. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. Politics DAs are great.

- Speed: Keep your speed reasonable. While I can handle a speedy round, I think teams who slow down perform better - they understand their round better, and I understand the arguments better. Clarity in the round matters. Make sure you articulate and enunciate your words. Speaking exceptionally quickly to try to read more cards or have more, and less developed arguments, isn't effective (and will hurt your speaks). I will let you know if I have a problem keeping up with (or understanding) you, and I'll give two warnings before I stop flowing. I will not use your cards to fill in what I miss because you are going too quickly (or if I stop flowing because I warned you twice).

If you are doing more than 7 off case arguments, you're not giving enough attention or time to all of the arguments, and you're likely relying on speed. I would far rather have fewer arguments with a deeper dive into the issues than more arguments and cursory explanations with an attempt to win simply by having the other team drop an argument that hasn't been developed much at all. I will weigh how well developed and impacted an argument is that the other team dropped when 8+ off-case are run.

- Cross Examination: I flow CX. Cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.

- Topicality: I will vote on topicality, but my threshold for topicality is rather high. Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain either how the AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework or why NEG's interpretation is better (I enjoy debates about what the proper meaning of a word should be and how that impacts the plan or the debate). If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, you have a problem, and your argument is very unlikely to persuade.

- Performance or Meta-Debate: I am not your judge, and you should strike me. My threshold for theory / topicality arguments against performance debate is low.

- Counterplans: I am a huge fan of counterplans, and I strongly look to functional competition. I enjoy a well run process counterplan. Process does matter in the real world and has real policy implications. I am not a fan of consult counterplans, but I have and will vote for them.

- Theory: I am fine with theory arguments and debates. For conditionality, I am fine with multiple CPs and kritiks, but keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. six or more worlds is not very reasonable). I default to reject the argument not the team. If I am to reject the team, not the argument, have a very good explanation as to why.

- Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but I am only well versed in K literature that is based in law and economics. For almost any other K you're going to need to SLOW DOWN and explain your buzzwords / jargon / concepts. If you don't explain the buzzword / jargon, I'm not searching your cards for what a term means.

I strongly dislike K taglines that are paragraphs. That is not a tagline - it's a mini-speech.

The K needs to link to the specific policy case made and engage with the substance of the Aff's plan. If there is no link to the specific policy or no engagement with the substance of the plan, then there is no reason for me to vote for the K. A successful K will (1) link to the specific policy being argued; and (2) have an alt that (A) is a conditional policy option; (B) competes with the Aff's plan; and (C) you have explained how it functions in the real world. If, at the end of the debate, I am left thinking "So what?" I am going to vote for the Aff if the Aff actually results in change in the status quo that solves for something, when the K does not.

For a K-Aff, the alt in the K-Aff needs to meet the same standards as the alt for any other K - the alt still needs to be topical, create change and solve for some harm.

- Off-Limits Arguments: No argument is out of bounds or off-limits in the debate round. Your team can make any argument it wants. If a team thinks an argument is objectionable or morally wrong, then the burden is on that team to explain why and why I should not vote for it. Merely claiming that something is offensive, immoral or "-ist" isn't enough. Why is it immoral or "-ist"? Why is it unfair or wrong? If your team can't explain why, I won't intervene to do the work for you. Run whatever argument(s) you want.

Note: The above should not be interpreted as carte blanche to engage in ad hominem attacks or other personal attacks in the round. You must be respectful to each other.

- Court or Legal Plans/Arguments: I am a UChicago law grad and a corporate attorney when not judging. I really enjoy listening to plans/counterplans/etc that involve the courts or a legal strategy. That said, I will know if you do not understand how the judicial branch functions, and I will know if your plan/CP actually functions or solves the way that you claim. I will not intervene to vote on these issues if the other team does not call you on it, but my threshold for them to call you on solvency deficits is low.