**Updated 11.02.20**

gmail: william.m.donovan@gmail.com

sensitive material: max.donovan@pm.me (this email is encrypted by proton mail)

please direct complaints to the former as I check it more often.

He/Him/His

TLDR: My opinion is one of many, and this round is just one of many. Treat them as such. Be kind, be open, and be willing to lose for what you believe in– you will have transcended this activity.

Head Coach Madison East High School. Competed in LD, PF, Extemp, and CX on the Colorado/National circuits for 4 yrs in high school. Also Congress.

Truth, kindness, forgiveness, and honesty over tech. It has never been appropriate to manipulate representations of people's lives as part of a game, but it is a practice that has become normalized in an activity that prioritizes winning over truth. If we are to overcome the deadly cynicism of our abundant society we are all responsible for taking radical steps toward treating our lives and those of others as very real. This ideology is central to who I am and it effects the way I interact with debate. Primarily in that I think each round is a real discussion and that I, as a human being and not a blank slate, am inherently a part of it. If you would like to advocate, inform, protest, perform, write, build a coalition, make friends, work on art, learn about government, develop policies, have a conversation, test your ideas against other debaters, etc., I would love to work with you and try to facilitate those projects. To address the elephant in the room– I have nothing against traditional policy discussions but I will not privilege them. I will be thinking about the round from a basis of reality– two debate teams and a judge in a room trying to figure out what to do in the world– unless you give me reason to abandon reality and embark on an illusion with you (there is always room for imagination, theory, and fabulation). If you are here to try and pick up ballots, you probably want to pref me very low, but I think discussions with those you disagree with are often the most fruitful, so maybe email me anyway.

As you might be able to tell, I have little reverence for the structures or constructs of the activity and believe many of them are unnecessary or actively harmful. Time yourselves (or don't), sit or stand, use your allotted time in CX/prep how you want to, but please be respectful of the other people in the discussion. I will only intervene if you are being abusive toward the other students, so if both teams agree to some altered format, please have at it. I think rigid adherence by judges and coaches to traditional structures shuts out student voices, so it is one of my projects not to give special treatment to familiar arguments or debate formats just because they have been accepted into the norm. Debate is a part of our reality though and I am not going to play dumb about shorthand or the history of arguments– there are often reasons certain arguments and formats are popular, but not all of those reasons are good. What is the role of the ballot? It buys us some time from tab to have a meaningful conversation. I will always try to have a good reason for voting, but that reason will not always follow standard course.

My dream rounds are relaxed, concise, and collaborative. This really just means please do your best to approach truth with the other team. Collaboration doesn't require agreement (and often requires criticism), but it does preclude hostility. I do not take kindly to deceit, grandstanding, interruption, or other forms of hostility as strategies. Power comes in solidarity so I am more impressed when abuse is resolved than when it is exploded. Alleging a theoretical violation shuts down productive conversation, but it is crucially important when other teams are acting in bad faith. If you're going to allege a theoretical violation (I include topicality in this category) please gut check the abuse first. When you argue theoretical violations as a strategy you cheapen those arguments for when actual abuse has occurred and shut down meaningful conversation. If you've decided an argument is actually abusive (as in– is a significant obstacle to your ability to participate in the discussion), please provide a comprehensive model of the debate round (e.g. role of ballot/role of judge, competing interpretations v. reasonability, drop the debater v. drop the argument) or I will default to my own standard of reasonability, and I do not think topicality or fairness are essential to a good debate round.

Please be open to admitting fault, apologizing, and to receiving apology when an abuse has been leveled against you. If the transgressor apologizes and changes their behavior I will be very reticent to vote on the abuse. Alternatively, if the abuse is minimized by the transgressor I believe that anger is a valid and righteous form of advocacy on behalf of the transgressed and will not hold it against you.

The cardinal sin as far as I am concerned is an inauthentic advocacy, especially in critiquing another team. Not only are you (k)riticizing the other team's behavior, you are doing so as an exploitative performance of outrage for personal gain. The contents of a K are often a dire call for change from a person who is being suffocated by existing power structures. When you exploit their words as a debate strategy you participate in an act of violent cynicism that takes power from their advocacy and contributes to their suffocation. Please, join a cause if it speaks to you, lift a voice if others need to hear it. I will always assume authentic intent (and I look very negatively on cynical arguments that seek to discredit the authenticity of another team's advocacy– @psychoanalysis). This is just a plea that you critically evaluate your own motivations and ask yourself whether you are contributing to an author's fight or if you are coopting their movement for a ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I have been made aware that my time as an LD debater makes me more amenable to post-modernist critique and psychoanalysis than most policy judges. I do not identify as a utilitarian, a humanist, or a neoliberal and I have spent enough time critiquing those ideas that I do not subconsciously default to them as a framework for evaluating impacts. If anything I lean toward an anarchic deontological model that prioritizes biological autonomy for individuals; political, social, cultural, and moral autonomy for communities; and temporary representative democracies for projects larger than that. I do not believe life has inherent value, but I do believe it has immense potential. Our souls, minds, and lives are not always ours to make or ours to lose, but when given the choice we should pursue life even at the cost of death.

I will talk to you for hours about your cases, my decisions, etc. so please reach out.

Debated previously in high school in Policy, know some basics on Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas. I would consider myself a tabs judge.

I'm okay with speed. Just slow down for taglines, make clear connections, and enunciate. Make sure to tell me why you won in your final speech. The more you can be organized and make your counterarguments clear, the better. If you feel you need to use transitions to make your points clearer, do so. If you have any questions feel free to ask me.

Brice Hansen

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

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

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

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


Specifics:

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

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

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

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

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

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hot takes:

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

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

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

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

Joe Klopotek: Assistant coach at SPASH

Experience: Have been coaching debate for 25 years. So yes, I am old.

Basic philosophy: I'm a believer that debate needs the direction of the activity to be controlled by the participants. So, while I prefer policy arguments, there is no way to give kids with different strengths a fair shot without being open to critical rounds because that is what they have spent hours getting ready to do. But, I think to a point, when you run a critical case, you do steal some important negative ground. So, you cannot dismiss framework arguments and claims of in-round abuse. Also, in the case of a narrative or other type of case that basically tells me the resolution means nothing, I think affirmatives have to abandon other traditional debate args and strategies. For example, you run a narrative and the other team runs a counter-narrative. I don't want you telling me to "perm" the counter narrative because if T is a stale old tradition, what is the perm? I think the best negative strat against a K aff is a counter K and then I can vote on whose K to endorse the most.

Stuff I'm picky about:

1. At this age, I need the speech docs for fast rounds

2. Intricacy: I want you to know the details of an argument. For example, if you make an argument that we are going to have a recession by 2020, I'd rather not have your analysis be "because top economists say so." Is it because of structural problems like inflation, wage gaps, fed policy?

3. Blather cards: K-Zad 95 was the most pertinent example of what I'd call a blather card. No warrant to any claim, just a lot of claims. Same thing with "no value to life" cards. As I see it, you are just as qualified to make that statement as a Professor is because there is simply no authority on that issue.

4. Rudeness: I will absolutely tank your speaker points for being rude to your opponents. The activity loses value when we allow bad treatment of fellow humans to be ignored.

5. Hands on the table during prep time

6. Shadow extending will not do you much

Experience: 2 years policy debate at UW Madison

I am the type of judge who is comfortable with all different types of strategies and arguments that you may want to run. I have experience in both policy and kritikal arguments, and I don't require affirmatives to have a USfg plantext. I am definitely open to hearing framework debates on kritikal affirmatives and am open to a wide variety of strategies to respond to affirmatives. Teams have a better chance of winning if they draw a clear contrast between the world of the affirmative and the negative and explain why the world they are defending is preferable. Impact calc, especially in the final two speeches, is crucial to winning my ballot, and broad-level impact comparison is more integral to winning than spending the last two speeches fleshing out the nitty gritty of the line by line. I vote for tech over truth in most instances but will not vote for arguments like racism/sexism good even if conceded. I am ultimately looking for interesting, well-explained debates where both teams respect each other, and I am willing to dock speaker points if I notice excessive hostility in rounds. Other than that, I am happy to answer any remaining questions you have before the round.

Debated three years of PF at Neenah High School and currently in third year of policy at UW-Madison. I'm comfortable with both policy and K debates. Something I find important is to stay organized; roadmaps are helpful, signposting, more so. Open cross is fine.

You should pay close attention to your delivery and the tone of your argumentation. Looking confident and making judges feel like your arguments are obviously true can seriously help shape an RFD. Additionally, take time to slow down in the 2NR/2AR and have two or three "ethos moments" where you stare a judge down and explain to them why a couple arguments are the most important ones in the world. If your 2NR/2AR is just you spreading for 5 minutes without actually changing your inflection or speed to articulate the crucial segments of your speech, I will likely miss some important arguments.

"Say what you mean and mean what you say"... Clarity and brevity is what I look for in concise arguments.

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".

I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.

2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments

3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively

Arguments

List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.

2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.

Other Notes

I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.

I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.