This will be my first year judging debate. I guess I'll see what rounds I get assigned to but I'm hoping to mainly judge Varsity Policy or other Policy divisions. I debated for four years in high school for Marquette. I spent my first year in novice policy, my second year in Varsity LD, and my last two years in Varsity Policy. I am also going to be debating at Minnesota in the Spring but am currently deferring my first semester of college. My career was a little scattered and I had some interesting rounds but I've always been a fan of the great debate community we have here in Wisconsin.

As far as my influences go they can pretty much be summed up with Matt Cekanor. I've obviously had other coaches such as Thomas Van Bibber, Milorand Robinson, and John Roselle, but most of what I know about debate comes from Matt. I like to say that I've taught myself everything I know, but that is a blatant lie and anyone who is unclear about my expectations, or judge philosophy should probably just reference his paradigm.

As far as broad overarching points on my judge philosophy go I think clash, knowledge of one's argument, and strategic vision are extremely important. In high school I was often extremely frustrated by rounds in which our opponents would read the same outdated case or off case blocks to our arguments that were unresponsive to our advantages, links, or impacts. Don't just read arguments to put tags on the flow or outspread the other team this makes the round and mess and leads to an infinite regression of meaningless jargon and tagline extensions(something I've definitely been guilty of doing before, it happens to the best of us). I also believe knowledge of one's argument is extremely important ... obviously. Debate is an educational activity and if you don't know what your talking about you're not doing anyone any favors and while perfection and knowing everything is impossible its definitely refreshing to see a debater who is familiar with their evidence and able to make well educated coherent points in round. Lastly strategic vision is very important for me because whether you're a critical team, a policy team, a nihlism team, or a song and dance team, and the end of the day odds are you're trying to win rounds, and winning rounds is best done through strategy. This is something I always struggled with in high school, and greatly appreciate seeing executing. Whether you're going for the pic with the internal da, or going for the k with case defense(an undervalued strategy-Matt Cekanor), you should have some sort of game plan going into every round if your really serious about competing and getting the most out of the debate.

Case- I think the case debate is a very important part of every round and often forgot about or undiscovered. I am very impressed by intelligent teams that use their case as defense to offcase arguments and are knowledgable enough to extend key warrants to fend off attacks on their advantages and solvency instead of reading a slew of unresponsive new evidence in the 2ac. I also believe that by the end of the round it is wise to collapse down to one key advantage or impact to outweigh the harms brought up by the negative. You don't have to do this to win a ballot in front of me, I just think it is strategically beneficial for any team to recognize and spend their time on their best argument in the 2ar.

DA-When debating the DA, i think it is very important to outweigh or turn the affirmative case and try to be winning on probability timeframe and magnitude. In my career I noticed it was rare for local circuit teams to just go for the disad but I think it is an undervalued strategy and much of my very limited national circuit success came though running well prepped and updated disads. A good block speech on the Da with additional impacts can be devastating for the one 1ar and oftentimes even one dropped impact scenario can cinch a negative victory.

K-I'm a fairly educated man, and even though I am yet to begin college, and carry on my debate career I have had a decent amount of experience with the K. I am by no means an expert in any sort or the word on any critical literature however. That being said I am very open to and interested in critical arguments and had a Baudrillard phase during my senior year which can be confirmed by my frustrated teammates and coaches from my alma mater. When evaluating the K I think specific links make a much stronger argument. Along with this point specific impacts that aren't just biopower or ontological death with no further explanation or substation in the round are also good. Lastly I think it is very important for the mechanism of the alternative to be clearly explained, and for the method of your criticism to have clear and coherent functionality within the round. If I am told to ontologically reposition myself or deconstruct language with no further explanation or synthesis of how your argument posits itself as a favorable plan to that of the affirmative I will not vote for you. Also floating pik's are cool, cheaty arguments are despicable but fun, if the debate delves into T then so be it

CP-I am a big counterplan fan, especially for plan inclusive cp's. I believe all any good counterplan needs is a clever alternative solvency mechanism and of course a net benefit. If you don't have a net benefit I will die on the inside. Please have a net benefit. I think that better solvency as an internal net benefit is great but you should also have external net benefits as well. Thats pretty much it. Answer the perm, steal the aff, suffer though the theory, take home the trophy.

Topicality-I am not an expert on topicality but I ran it a fair amount in high school and had some success with it especially in running away from critical affs with framework. Even though it may not be a glamorous argument, I think it is a very important one to the debate game, and oftentimes can create some very interesting and competing rounds. Make sure your always extending your definitions and try to treat the argument like and disad in the sense that these debates should come down to impacts like any other rounds. Show me the abuse, show me why your world has better education and show me why you have the best evidence. Also I believe any team running T should always have TVA's (Topical Versions of the Affirmative), and should use these as defensive arguments as the the opponents education is not unique.

Theory-This is admittedly my least favorite arg in the game. Mostly because I've been crushed by it before and its dullness depresses me. However it is necessary just Topicality and can be highly strategic in a pinch. I will not have any bias against this agreement in round even though I may get bore and I am definitely open to sorting though a T battle in the final rebuttals.

Sidenotes/Clownery-I will reward point for any jokes(appropriate ones), and double these points if they are inspired by Matt Cekanor's beard. I also have a love hate relationship with puns so do your worst at your own risk. Most importantly I love music so any music playing before round is great. Unless your music is bad. If you're not sure if your music is bad pay attention to what your listening too. If your music is modern country ie. Luke Bryant or contemporary popular rap ie. Lil' whatever or something that you feel might be similar, chances are your music is bad. If your music is Johnny Cash or Nirvana or some artist or band with similar talent and refinement than you will have my respect, and at the end of the day what more could you ask for. Debate is just a game. Trophy's are mostly just plastic and anticlimactic, and winning is a never ending cycle of stress and disappointment. But have fun!!! (Also please play the "The Pesos" in round, they are my favorite band, need more attention, and are under appreciated)

Quotes-

"It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings." -Kurt Cobain

"I know very little about acting. I'm just an incredibly gifted faker." -Robert Downey Jr.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north." -Abraham Lincoln

"Sorry I'm late, I got lost on the path of life." -Kakashi Hatake

”I like happy things, I’m really calm and peaceful.” -Marshall Mathers

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.

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.