Hi, I’m Doron. I coach Ld for Mountain View/Los Altos (CA). I’m also a ph.d student in English at the University of Wisconsin. I have previously coached at Millburn High School (NJ) and UW (WI).

2023-24 is my 15th debate season (including competing for four years in high school). Generally speaking, I consider myself more of a traditional debate coach/judge these days. I don’t dislike circuit debate (most of my dissertation concerns the kinds of things debaters would refer to as “k lit”), but I do dislike judging it.

I find that I’m generally more likely to vote for debaters who:

- Demonstrate strong topic knowledge
- Make sound strategic decisions (knowing which arguments to go for and which to drop because they don’t matter/affect the ballot)
- Make proper extensions (i.e. don’t just tell me to extend something, also tell me why the extension matters)
- Demonstrate a sense of style/personality during the round. I.e. Make the round (or yourself) stand out.
- signpost exceptionally clearly during your rebuttal speeches—I think this is a hugely underrated skill in debate.
- Very explicitly weigh impacts back to the framework.
- Actually seem like they're having fun.

My paradigm has gone through several evolutions over time, but I find that going through all the technicalities is much more important for circuit debate than traditional debate, so I'll keep the document short. I’m also happy to answer any questions you might before the round starts.

Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

Experience: 4 years judging; 1 year policy, 3 years LD/PF

In an LD round, whoever achieves the accepted value and value criterion better will win the round. I’m traditional in that I do like you to debate the framework. Don’t ignore it and flow it through the round.

I value clash. That goes for all divisions. Make sure you’re attacking your opponent’s case equally to defending yours. Give me line-by-line analysis and impact analysis. It’s nice if you tell me your voters, but if you don’t, I’ll fall back to the framework debate and decide who achieves it better. I don't like theory arguments, unless you can make it clear on what the theory is and explain it thoroughly.

In policy I flow all arguments. I look for solvency in the round. If there is no solvency then I'll weigh the round based on impacts. Counterplans are okay, I’m less familiar with Kritiks. If you’re going to run it, make sure you explain it well.

I don’t prefer speed. I can handle it to an extent but be clear and enunciate. If you’re going too fast I’ll tell you. I do allow using your phone as timers.

I will only disclose if I know my decision. If I do not know my decision, I will let the students go while I look through my flow and decide.

I also dont give oral critiques, i will write them on the ballot.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in LD and then coached Lake Highland and several independent debaters from 2013-2017. I now judge sporadically.

Feel free to call me Terrence. If you have any questions, contact me at tlonam@gmail.com.

I think I'm in line with most general judge preferences, except that I won't vote on disclosure theory or evaluate disclosure as offense back to a counter-interp (i.e. having disclosed something won't be offense for your counter-interp). Also, I think I have a reasonably high threshold for extensions.

My default interpretation of the resolution is that it is a truth statement, and so any way that the aff or neg chooses to prove that truth or falsity is fair game. If you want me to evaluate the resolution a different way, that's fine too, this is just my default. I think I'm pretty center of the road argument-wise (i.e. if you want to read a pre-fiat performance aff, that sounds good, and if you want to go hard on tricks or phil, that's fine too). I think that debaters do their best when they do what they want to. Don't read a complicated philosophical AC in front of me if that's not what you want to do, I would much rather see you do a great job on util or the K if that's your thing.

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

PF Paradigm:

12/3/2020 update: My bar for dropping a team for cheating is fairly low. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence and you want to stake the round on it, a useful phrase to know is: "I am making a formal evidence challenge under NSDA rule 7.3.C., for distortion of evidence. We are stopping the round and staking the round's outcome on the result of this formal evidence violation."

No off-time roadmaps. Period. Signpost instead. I will start the clock when you start roadmapping.

Online debate: Before the round starts, there should be a Google Doc (preferred instead of email) with all debaters and judges on it. You should be prepared to add any evidence you read to that Doc in a carded format -- I am receptive to drop-the-argument theory if evidence isn't accessible to your opponents in round.

I time prep meticulously because prep theft is rampant in PF. If a card is requested, teams have 60 seconds to find the card and add it to the file sharing mechanism of the round -- anything beyond that comes out of the prep time of the team that can't find their own evidence. If evidence can't be found, there needs to be an argument made in a speech to drop it (eg. "Drop their argument because they could not share the supporting evidence: we were not given a fair chance to review and dispute its claims."). Discuss and review evidence during cross-x time whenever possible.

If both teams agree to it before the round, and the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow it, I am fine with waiving Grand Cross and granting both teams an additional minute of prep time.

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

• If it's not in the final focus, it's not going to win you the round.

• I appreciate effective crossfire, and will listen to it, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "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 expected to just read case (though I'm open to teams rejecting this norm), I expect coverage of both sides of the flow starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). 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 framework arguments in case.

• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical PF strategy, like a "kritik".

• I don't give weight to any argument labeled as an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round.

If you start your speech by saying "3-2-1", I will say "Blastoff"! "3-2-1" is not necessary!

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

NSDA 2021: I have judged ZERO rounds on this topic. The last policy judging I did was at NCFL 2019. I will not know the jargon or meta of this topic.

Judging circuit policy debate is generally an unpleasant experience for me, mainly because of speed. However, lay-oriented CX debate is easily my favorite event.

General Overview:

• Default to Policymaker paradigm. The one major difference is that you should always assume that I am very dumb. Call it the 'stupid President' paradigm.
• You're welcome to run non-traditional positions (K's included) IF you keep them to a conversational pace (We're talking Public Forum slow here) and explain why it means I vote for you.
• I have a mock trial background and I LOVE clever cross-x. However, I do expect closed cross-x: one person per team speaking!
• I don't open speech docs except to review specific pieces of evidence that have been indicted.

Presentation Preferences:

• <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence.
• 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.
• 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 'whiplash' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD and PF, too.

Argumentation Preferences:

• I like smart counterplans that discuss technical details.
• Theory/K's should be impacted more than just saying "voter for fairness and education".

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

Speed-reading (spreading) is embarrassing. I want to sell school administrators on this activity.

My default stance is to vote based on the "truth" of the resolution, but you can propose alternative frameworks.

I have no K background. For Ks/nontraditional arguments, go slowly and explain thoroughly. Explain either how the K proves/disproves the resolution, or offer a compelling alternative ROTB.

Disclosure theory is exclusionary/bad, but disclosed positions get more leeway on certain T standards.

Presentation Preferences:

• Number your refutations.
• Use cross-ex effectively -- the goal is to get concessions that can be used in speeches.
• Present charismatically, make me want to vote for you as a communicator (though I vote off the flow).

Argumentation Preferences:

• Give me voter issues -- the big ballot stories of the round. Go big picture and frame how I'm supposed to look at issues.
• Philosophical "evidence" means very little to me. A professor from Stanford making a specific analytical claim is functionally the same as you making that argument directly.
• I'm bad at flowing authors and try to get the concepts down in as much detail as possible instead. For philosophical arguments, I generally prefer clearly explained logic over hastily-read cards. However, evidence related to quantitative things should be cited because those studies are highly dependent on precision/accuracy and are backed up empirically.

Anton Shircel

Coaching:
Assistant coach/judge for Sheboygan South from 2004-2006
Assistant/Head coach Neenah from 2006-2010
Assistant coach Waukesha South 2012-2014
Head Coach Sheboygan North High School 2014-Present

High School Experience:
Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years (1998-2002)
Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS
Participated in Forensics, Mock Trial, and Student Congress

Public Forum Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: This format is geared towards having citizen judges. Speed should reflect a quick-paced conversation. Clarity and enunciation is paramount in understanding the arguments. I shouldn't need to follow a transcript of your speech to understand what you are saying.

Framework: This is a key point that needs to be made in the first speeches. The pro/con need to show the framework of how they achieve a win for the round. This needs to be clearly stated and then proven in their contentions. A lack of framework shows a lack of focus. If for some reason that there isn't a framework, my default one would be a basic Utilitarian framework.

Off Case Arguments: I am not a fan of kritiks, theory, and other off-case arguments in a public forum round. Look, I am not going to write it off on my own. The opposition still needs to address it. However, it will not take much beyond a basic abuse argument for me to cross it off the flow.

Role of Summary & Final Focus: At this point, the arguments have been stated. Each side should be weighing the different positions and showing why they are ahead on the flow. The summary is also the point where there should be strategic choices made on collapsing or kicking contentions/arguments.

Policy Debate Philosophy: Policy Maker
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments. As far as open-cross examination, I am not against it. However, both sides must be okay with the situation.

Topicality: I am not the biggest fan of topicality. There must be a clear violation of the affirmative for me to consider voting. I like a structured t debate with clear standards, etc. and competing definitions. I see topicality as an a priori issue that I vote on first in the round.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a great negative strategy. There needs to be a clear Counterplan Text and some sort of competitiveness. I am not the biggest fan of topical counterplans. Perms need to be explicit as well so that there is no vagueness.

Kritiks: I am a fan of kritks, but the negs need to make sure they understand them. It looks bad if the neg stumbles/contradicts themselves in the cross-examinations. Also, I need a clear alternative/world view from the negatives if they hope to have me vote on it at the end of the round. Again, perms need to be clear and explicit and show that competitiveness does not exist.

Theory: Theory is not the end-all of the rounds for me. I tend to look at rounds as real-world. Some theory would be needed at times such as perms/topicality but should only be used as support to an argument and not as an argument itself.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments.

Whole Res Vs. Plan Specific Cases: I prefer whole resolution debates. If I wanted a plan-specific case, I would be judging policy.

Counterplans: See my thoughts on plan-specific cases above. The same holds true for negative positions that go plan-specific.

Theory: It should be an essential aspect of your position. However, I do not enjoy when it falls into the theory of debate itself.

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com

My pronouns are he/him. I graduated from the University of Wisconsin - Madison majoring in Statistics and Philosophy. I debated LD in High school and I have coached PF and LD as well as taught for two summers at the Texas Debate Collective. I judge very infrequently, about 1-2 tournaments a year.

I don't have a style preference on what shape your arguments take however, I will not accept racism, sexism, being homophobic, etc. I try to be completely tab and strive to know in a round only what has been told to me. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story. Be nice and have fun, it's good to win but only if everyone had fun along the way. Email chains are fine, please add me in, my email is thomasonj007@gmail.com. I do not read your case during the round.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. Do not do the things I mentioned earlier as well as do not be mean, do not put down your opponent, and do not be invasive in their personal space, do not talk during opponents prep time, do not interrupt your opponent while they are speaking.

Feel free to ask me anything if any other questions arise or you just want to talk to someone.