Hey folks,

I debated in public forum for West Bend High School in West Bend, WI for four years. During that time, I competed on the National circuit but primarily competed within Wisconsin circuit. I've found that the best way to approach debate is with an open mind receptive to learning new things about debate and understanding that debate will change over time. I feel I've gotten better at debate since becoming a judge than I ever was as a competitor now that I am able to view rounds with less bias towards winning.

The main goal of my work as a judge is to give you honest and constructive feedback. The best advice I received as a debater was that if you are being respectful, you are not just more likely to win a round but you are winning at life. Debate is a great place to bring out your competitive side, but please don't confuse having a competitive edge with being disrespectful.

Please keep in mind that while I did a few tournaments of Lincoln Douglas in high school and a little policy in college, I am fundamentally a PF debater and judge. Most of my paradigm is PF specific but many points hold across the board so it's still worth skimming if you are LD or Policy.

Logistics. What I like to see in a round-

Argumentative Split

I believe the second rebuttal should cover turns from the first rebuttal. It doesn't need to be a full 2-2 split but you must cover important responses (turns and disads, really, though it's generally wise to also hit terminal defense). Speaking second is incredibly advantageous, and it's a waste to not cover responses in the second rebuttal and makes the rest of the round messier.

Speed

If you're clear, I can flow speed. If you're too fast or incomprehensible, neither of us will be particularly happy. Luckily this trend has faded in Wisconsin, but there is still a silly trend floating around national circuit PF of people trying to "outspread" their opponents, whatever that means in PF. Fewer well-done arguments that I can understand will be rewarded more than a bunch of blippy stuff you just spew out. If you don't show me the link chain or make a clear impact, I may not reward you the argument so make everything clear.

Types of arguments

While this rarely tends to happen in Wisconsin PF because your coaches have rightfully cleared this from the pool, it is possible you may try to run things like theory and Ks. I hold that they are not done well in public forum. You can try to run them in front of me and I'll evaluate them fairly, but that doesn't mean I'll like them. Honestly, I usually don't. I think most theory run by PFers is pretty bad and makes me sad. It'll have to be done pretty well for you to both win and still get good speaker points. I really don't like it when teams run Ks or theory just to be squirrely, which many teams do. (Note: this is distinct from calling opponents out for participating in various -isms. Feel free to label offensive arguments as such, I am just less inclined to like random shells about very small issues that you read just to put your opponents on the train to Shooksville.) Running these arguments just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer them is exclusionary and it will make me not like you :-)

I really don't like when teams run squirrely things just to throw off their opponents. I will vote off the flow but I will probably be displeased doing it if I think you're being sketchy. Your points may suffer.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" (eg the military spending topic) please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring. I hate when people run super obscure advocacies that make zero sense just because they can. I will tend to interpret this as a plan and I don't accept plans in PF. Stick to interpreting the resolution and the probability of your impacts occurring.

Dates

For the love of god please read them. And names too while you are at it. Definition debates and date debates make me want to quit judging but still read them both.

Evidence

I can't believe I have to say this, but please represent evidence honestly. I'm not going to punish you for paraphrasing but I do expect you to stay true to what the evidence is saying if you choose to do so. It will severely injure your credibility if I catch you misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable. If you find your opponent doing this *ever* (regardless of who is judging) call them out. If evidence sounds too good to be true, call the card. It might win you a round. It's won me a handful.

Please don't do "debater math" or over-extrapolate the results and numbers in studies. It's often unethical and usually just uneducational and inaccurate. Wrong. Bad. Pls don't.

You should know where your evidence is. I won't start immediately running your prep when opponents want you to find some evidence because I think that's silly, but if you start taking more than a minute or so I will.

I know paraphrasing is not against the rules, so I will allow it, but I prefer you actually read from your evidence. Bracketing in your card is really uncool. The one exception, I guess, would be clarifying a qual or something. For example, if your card says "Claus continues" and you add "[world-traveler and gift delivery expert Santa] Claus continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Summary and Final Focus

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like when teams collapse well in these speeches. For the love of god, don't go for everything. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, WEIGH.

Not Being a Jerk

Be funny, be witty, but don't be rude. Don't snap at your opponent, talk down to them, or attack them. Jokes and puns are welcome, but trying too hard is less so.

I have noticed there is a trend emerging in public forum. To put it simply, this trend involves being a massive jerk to your opponent in cross. While I will not automatically drop you for this, I am not afraid to tank your speaks. Be nice and we will all be happy, be mean and nobody will be happy. :-)

Prep

Keep track of it. I am far too lazy to do it for you. And I don't always remember to click that lil button that makes the timer go beep so don't make me look bad, time yourself.

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

I could not care less if you enter the room or do the flip before I get there. Go ahead, if you want to.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/etc to be comfortable, I really don't care, and I won't dock you for it.

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, you might want to strike me. Unless I am sobbing from the sheer beauty of whatever earth-shattering revelations your speeches gave me I don't intend on giving you a thirty. 27 is supposed to be average, and point fairy-ism is bad norms. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27-28.5 range. (Note: I've gotten more liberal with this over time but I think it's a fair disclaimer).

If you show me photos of dogs, I'll give you a 30. Just kidding. No I won't. But you can do it anyways.

This is my 9th year judging LD and PF. I was a Policy 4-person debater throughout high school before switch side took over. With that being said, speed generally isn't an issue for me. However, if you plan on reading so fast that you can't seem to catch your breath we may have an issue. I will say clear and if I still can't understand you I will close my laptop and stop flowing. It isn't fair to your opponent if you are reading so fast they cannot keep up and frankly, it's bad debating.

I enjoy listening to debates that interact with the real world. I like hearing about the big picture, I tend to pay more attention to big picture items in round versus minute details. Tell me why I should vote for you and what will happen if I don't. I like hearing impact calculation, cost benefit analyses and the more 'policy like' arguments (the only exception to the policy like arguments is nuclear war. We get it, we’re all going to die of nuclear fallout, there are far better impacts than this.) While I prefer real world ideas and how my decision will impact people, I enjoy listening to theory debates. When running theory I want you to explain to me what it is you're running, I want you to teach it to me like I'm a kid. I need to know that you understand what you are talking about. Theory is not only difficult to run but exceptionally difficult to run well. A bad theory argument is a time suck to the debate round and a missed chance of learning for you and your opponent.

I’ve heard so many bad roadmaps. If you are going to give me a roadmap before your speech please just tell me whether it’s your case or your opponent’s case and, if it’s relevant whether it is on or off case. I don’t need a long detailed explanation on what you are covering in each contention during your roadmap.

Cross Ex: This is for you as a debater, I'm not flowing this or pulling through any arguments you made here. Cross Ex is for you to clarify and ask questions of your opponents.

I expect debaters to time their own speeches and cross examination. I also expect that you keep track of your own prep time, I will as well but, technology is fickle and having an additional timer is usually helpful. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them.

Ehrlich, Miranda

About me: I debated policy in college for four years at the University of Minnesota and was a semi-finalist at the NDT in 2015. While I have many years of experience judging and coaching policy debate, it's been several years since I've judged at a tournament, and the Wisconsin State Debate Tournament is my first time judging online debate. These are also the first rounds I am judging on this topic, so please err on the side of more explanation of acronyms, key concepts, etc.

Couple of top-level comments:

--Dropped arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication – “perm do both” without an explanation of how it solves the net benefit is not a winning argument

--Impact calc is extremely important, but underutilized

--Clarity in speaking is important to me. Please strive to be comprehensible on both tags and card text!

Some specifics:

Disads – The more specific, the better, but if politics is your primary strategy, I’m a perfectly fine judge for you.

Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor international object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between.

Kritiks – Can be a viable strategy in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically to all portions of the case. I would highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”. I also like K affs that are topical, defend a real-world impact, and critique disads – especially if you can point out why the disad is contrived and silly, which it likely is. Generic postmodern K’s, on the other hand – not my cup of tea, and I’m not familiar with the lit base. On many popular K's, the link seems to be "you don't solve enough" rather than "you actively do something bad". If you can't figure out a way to phrase your link as offense and impact it, you will have a hard time winning my ballot.

Non-traditional – It is important to me that the aff explains how they solve the harms that are presented. If they fail to do this, I can be persuaded by presumption. I am skeptical of the "you don't get a perm in a method debate" argument, but could see myself voting for it if debated poorly by the other team or debated exceptionally well by the negative. Affs should be aware that I generally find a well-debated framework argument to be persuasive. When I vote against framework, it is usually because the aff convinces me that they either have a) out-teched the other team or b) that the neg has mishandled a fundamental thesis claim of the aff that interacts with framework. When I vote for framework, it is usually because the neg has both won some offense (usually with an internal link based on predictable limits) and also mitigated the case by explaining how framework can resolve it (such as T version of the aff) or through case-specific defense.

Theory – I generally think conditionality is good, but I can be persuaded to vote on it, especially if the neg has read 3+ conditional advocacies. I do, however, think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps or argue for judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so. Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Other - I will not vote for arguments that are blatantly morally reprehensible, such as racism good, sexism good, genocide good, etc.

Experience

I competed in Public Forum at the national level for Sheboygan North from 2006-2008. Debate has changed a lot since I was competing.

I have been judging for the last five years off and on for several Wisconsin Schools. I have judged forensics for the past 10 or so years and competed much more heavily in that side of the Speech and Debate activity. Overall I'd say that I am moderately experienced when it comes to judging debate.

Preferences

Above all else I want to see that you know how to evaluate, cite, and use evidence. It is not enough to just say you have a card/source which states X. I want to know how reliable this source is and how you know you can trust this information. Critical thinking is key. Going forward this is the best skill you will take away from this activity.

In addition please connect your case to the resolution. I now it should go without saying...but here we are.

Kritiks are new to me but I like them. This kind of thinking is refreshing provided it stays on task and doesn't stray too far from the resolution. Also Ks still need to effectively use evidence.

I like having a framework. It gives me something to reference through out the round.

Dislikes

Disrespectful or overly aggressive behavior will lose you a lot of speaker points. I will be watching you while your opponents are speaking keep that in mind. Be respectful and polite.

Do not tell me how I should vote/flow/evaluate arguments. Do not address me and say "Judge you should X" I know what I should be doing and I know how to evaluate a round. Let your case do the talking and don't address me directly. In the same vein don't say things like "This flows to our side" or "We turned that." Those are evaluations that I will make if you did these things I will see it. Public forum emulates making speeches to the public you wouldn't address a town hall full of voters that way so don't do it here.

Don't spread in PF if you want to do that go do policy.

Other

I love creativity.

Have Fun! While it's great to be competitive, remember that you should be having fun.

I debated PF in high school and have judged primarily in PF (but also LD and Policy) actively for the last 6 seasons.

My preference is you speak clearly and articulately (rate doesn't matter as long as I can understand you). Do your research and back your arguments with facts and sources. Be courteous to your opponents, teammate and judge. Time yourself and watch your speech time - I will cut you off if you go over the allowable grace period (and I don't like to do that).

I do not disclose but may provide a few oral critiques if they are easier to articulate that way vs writing. But I will always try to provide constructive critiques and clear decision logic on the ballot as well.

I am entering the debate room as a blank slate, your job is to convince me that your argument is right.  Please no spread when debaters speak too fast I tend to tune out, same with volume and tome, please be respectful to your oppontent, please have your cards ready incase your oppoentent asks to see it, so we don't waste time looking for it. 

TL; DR: I like debate, be nice, please WEIGH VOTERS/IMPACTS

For me, debate was one of the most important and impactful things I did while I was in high school. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to do debate and we should all make sure debate is as inclusive as possible.

Fundamentally, this is accomplished through mutual respect between and for competitors and judges. Everyone should feel comfortable debating in front of their opponents, their partner, and the judge, and I try to do my part to facilitate that. On the flip side, I have zero tolerance for disrespectful, snide, or patronizing comments, whether that is between students or between students and judges. If you shout at me or your opponent, your speaker points and/or the result of the round will reflect that.

This carries into arguments you might run: don’t run an argument/case just because you think your opponent won’t know how to respond to it. I hate it when people run garbage just because they can (i.e., poorly done meme cases). I’m a flow based judge, but I’ll still tank your speaks for being obscure or esoteric.

On to debate specifics:

To quote Ozan Ergungor--

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

Speed: I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, please make sure I can understand you! If you think you’re going too fast, you’re going too fast. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you!

Crossfire: I don’t flow cross-ex unless you tell me to. Any arguments need to be included in subsequent speeches (except FF, no new arguments there).

Rebuttal split: The second rebuttal should start to begin to rebuild following the first rebuttal. If you don't, it puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on your partner to rebuild in the summary while also distilling voters and that can get messy.

Summary/Final Focus: Please, please, please, please, please give me voters and why you win the voters as soon as possible, ideally by the summary. Please do not make your summary a rebuttal reprise or a mini-case. Distill and collapse the debate efficiently and identify where the key points of clash are.

Evidence:

1. Give me dates, names, and sources
2. Paraphrasing is okay, but don’t abuse the bracket. Make sure you are accurately and truthfully representing evidence and not performing debate magic on stats and findings.
3. I will only call for a card if it’s being flowed in opposite directions or if either team asks me to (but remember the rules around a formal accusation).
4. I won’t take prep when you ask for a card, but I'll start to run it when you've had a chance to read it. Don’t abuse that though, otherwise I’ll run prep and dock your speaker points.

Miscellaneous:

Keep track of your own speech and prep times. I'll keep track too: if you go 30 seconds over the time limit on either, you can get a maximum of 25 speaker points. Don't steal prep either (i.e., saying "end prep" and then proceeding to take 10 more seconds of prep).

I always vote Pro on the second and fourth weekend of the month, and Con on the first and third weekend of the month. Nah I’m just kidding

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.

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.

For LD

Tabs

Speed is fine, flash me if you're reading faster than 320 wpm

Please make good use of the framework debate, it should play heavily into impact calculus

Will vote on theory

Spikes are fine

Ks are kool

I like to see trix and creative arguments/cases

For PF

Tech over truth

Most of my experience is judging, competing in, and cleaning LD

Frontlines in summary are fine for second speaking, but please try to cover as much as of the flow as is possible, especially things you want to remain relevant

I'm ok with minimal weighing until final focus, but it needs to be extremely clear at that point

Please signpost very clearly

Clash is everything, and the simplest path to my ballot is winning over the parts of the flow where there's a lot of clash

Strike me if you're paraphrasing. It creates a ridiculous research burden for your judges and opponents. Debate cases are also necessarily not subject to the same scrutiny as published academic works, so they are not comparable.

I'm ok with speed, but I prefer to be flashed if you're going over 320wpm. That said, there's no need to be excessive with less experienced opponents

I love (brief) framework long as it's relevant to weighing or as an impact filter, but if you're second speaking it has to come up in constructive. It's acceptable in first rebuttal as long as your opponent introduced some in second constructive

In that vein, K cases are acceptable.

I have nothing against theory, but I'm still inclined to think PF rounds are too short for most full shells. Concise, well reasoned analytics will do

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 began coaching debate as the assistant coach at West Bend East in the fall of 1971. I think it was 1973 when I became the head coach. I’ve been a member of NFL/NSDA since 1964 and am currently a 5 diamond coach. I’m a retired Speech and English teacher with 50 years of debate and forensic coaching experience.

Policy

Long ago, I believed in case specific details. I still do. Call me old-fashioned. I won’t mind. I’ll consider it a compliment. I believe that the affirmative has a responsibility to present a prima facie case and a plan to correct the problem. I believe their case is strengthened when it’s supported by a number of experts, not just one lone voice used over and over.

I believe that the negative should attack those stock issues and plan. I have been known to vote on T. I expect the violation to be based on reasonable definitions -- probably not words like: "the", "a", "an" -- get the idea? The change needs to be real, not an "it might" situation.

I do not believe that counterplans (I'll listen to them) should be topical or that every plan will lead to a nuclear war. If that were the case, we’d all be dead, not debating. I like the real world. DA's need to link to the case.

I believe that debaters ought to be polite to each other – well, at least civil. I don’t think debaters should be asking or answering questions during another’s cross exam period. If your partner needs help, work with him/her during the week.

I don’t believe that debaters need to talk so fast that no one could possible understand their words. Where’s the logic in that? Can you win arguments when people have no clue what you’ve said? I simply declare that those indistinguishable words were never spoken in the round and no mention of them will be found on my flow.

I like well sign-posted attacks and responses. I like clarity. I like analysis, not just card reading. It’s not my job to make your argument for you. And if your evidence could actually match the tag you read, that would be a tremendous asset to your side. I don’t like jargon. My world is a no “perm” world. Persuade me with your logical, substantiated attacks. The number of issues is not particularly relevant but the impact is.



Lincoln-Douglas

I’m a purist. I expect a clearly explained value from each debater. I expect clash on which value should have the higher priority or who better achieves the agreed upon value. I expect you to answer the question posed by the resolution rather than the question you want to answer.

Although this is theory debate, a few concrete examples will help me believe your position. BTW: theory means just that. L-D should be about whether we should/shouldn't do something. It's about deciding which idea is better than another. It is not policy debate. It does not require a plan to fix a problem and, with that, it does not entertain a counter-plan ( and neither do I.).

I have the same pet peeves here as in all other debate formats. Too fast means I didn’t catch the idea. That’s bad. Too little analysis means I can’t expect your opponent to respond to it. That’s equally bad –actually, that’s worse. I will listen to anything you want to include in your attack. I will not, however, make the attacks for you. Be specific.

At the end, I expect both debaters to flat out tell me why you win the round. What are the voters?

If my comments sound cruel or unrealistic to you, please strike me in whatever way you can because you don’t want me as your judge. Oh, and, no I won’t hold up the next round with oral comments.

If I haven’t answered your questions/concerns, feel free to ask. I’ll share.

PF

Pretty much the same as what I've already covered. I want clearly explained ideas with evidence. Just because you say it does not automatically make it true. I'm not listening for a specific plan (or counter-plan) to solve the resolution. I want to know which side gives me the better outcome.

Congress

When I listen to Congress speeches, I expected clear, logical, well-documented reasons for supporting your position. I don't want to hear you rambling on the topic in general. I want you to respond to the ideas of other speakers. I want new ideas (not repetition) add to the debate. I do like a "smile's worth" of humor added to the debate.

I'm not impressed by pre-written speeches. In fact, those will likely lower your ranking with me. As a former speech teacher, I do appreciate a well-delivered speech but I prefer good solid thought over smooth delivery. A few stumbles are not critical.

If you're answering a question, get to the point. Don't answer the question you want to answer, but rather, answer the one you were asked.

In the chamber, I expect decorum. I watch to see your participation with questioning and to see that you are paying attention to the proceedings.

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.

I started debating in 1998, competing in Policy Debate through High School and College on a scholarship. My personal debate highlights include state champion (2001), successful trips to both NSDA (formerly NFL) and CEDA Nationals, speaker award at the Pan-Pacific Debate Championship (South Korea, 2003). I have served as a debate camp counselor (Whitman College; Bellingham Debate Cooperative at WWU) and as a paid debate evidence contributor for West Coast Publishing. I have coached and judged Policy, LD and Public Forum in the many years since then.

You may put me in a specific paradigm via your argumentation in the round. In the absence of this, I will default to my own style of policymaking, which is to compare the world of the aff (pro) vs the world of the neg (con) and vote for the "world" that solves more/bigger problems than it creates.

I prefer impacted arguments with "even if..." type analysis. Chances are you aren't winning everything in the round, so this helps me as a judge understand how you'd like me to weigh competing arguments.

On a sidenote, please be ready to begin your speech when you stop prep time and/or run out of it. If you tell me to end prep time (or run out of it) and after a reasonable amount of time have not actually started your speech, I will start your speech time so please be prompt.

Email for fileshare:

umstotd@elmbrookschools.org

Don't postround me. I judge on what I heard in the round and nothing you say after the round will change my ballot. If you do choose to postround me I will walk out of the room and give you the lowest speaks possible for the tournament. You may email me with questions after the round provided your adult coach is CCed on the email.

POLICY
Three years policy debate experience, head coach at Brookfield Central High School.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, but if you don't tell me what to vote on, I'll fall back to which is the better policy based on impact calculus. Do the impact calculus for me, unless you want me to do it myself.

I'm not a fan of Topicality. I'll hear it, and I'll flow it, but you must convince me that it's a voter and your definition can't be absolutely ridiculous.

I love Counterplans, as I was a CP-heavy debater myself. Kritiks are fine, but give me a clear alternative and make sure that you explain your K well.

You can speed, but not through tags or analytic arguments. I need to be able to flow. I'll tell you if you're speaking too quickly for me.

Use roadmaps and signposting. It makes it easier for me to flow, and better for you if I can understand the debate.

Clash is by and large one of the most important things in a debate for me. You'll keep my attention and get much higher speaker points.

I like real-world impacts. You might have a hard time convincing me of global extinction. Be smart when it comes to impacts and make sure they realistically link.

Open C-X is fine, but don't go overboard. Keep in mind that it's your partner's C-X, and if you use all of it, I will dock you speaker points.

New in the 2 - I'm okay with this I suppose...but with this in mind, the Affirmative is definitely free to run theory on this if the 2N is just trying to spread the Aff out of the round by saving their entire offense for the 2NC.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
First and foremost, I evaluate the framework. However, even if you lose the framework, that doesn't mean you've lost the round. Prove your case can fit under your opponent's framework. If I can still evaluate your case under your opponent's framework, I can still buy your case. As far as the contention debate goes, I don't necessarily buy that you have to win every contention to win the contention debate. You don't have to take out all of your opponent's contentions, either. Focus on impacts. Focus on weighing your case against your opponent's case, and how each contention provides the best example of the value. The team who provides the most evidence that shows affirming/negating will benefit society (through either value) more will win the debate.

I welcome CPs, Ks, and ROTBs, as long as you are running them because YOU understand them, not because you think your opponent WON'T. The point of debate is education, and running a tricky K in a convoluted way to confuse your opponent won't win you a ballot in front of me. Be clear and contribute to the education of debate. I prefer that you don't spread too much in LD. Although I do judge policy as well, and can flow most speed, it's not my preference.
I'll disclose but I'm not going to give you excessive oral critiques. That's what my ballot is for.

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.