Former Debate Coach at Whitefish Bay High School. I keep a rigorous flow and I will vote for all types of arguments.

I'm listening, but I usually don't add cross examination or crossfire to the flow, so make sure you bring it up in a subsequent speech. Flex prep is fine.

For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

I have been a student debater primarily in Policy debate at Bradley Tech High School, with a few debates under my belt in Public Forum Debate as well. I have judged Policy as well as Public Forum, and primarily Lincoln Douglas Debate for the last 5 years on the Wisconsin Circuit and once at the Glenbrooks.

SPEED:Not a fan of speed, as debaters tend to get very inarticulate when trying to spread other debaters.

FRAMEWORK:I put a lot of weight on framework debates. This is a big voter for me.

KRTIKS: Not much of a fan mostly due to the fact that most debaters can't fully explain one in the short amount of time allotted. Run at your own peril or if you can explain and convince me fully to pick up up on one.

COUNTER PLANS:I usually like to hear counterplans, as long as they have structure and can be explained well to convince me to vote on it.

THEORY: I can listen to it, but most of the time, it won't be enough to guarantee a win, UNLESS you are very convincing in it, AND that is all you have for a particular argument.

DISADVANTAGES: See impacts.

IMPACTS: VERY IMPORTANT! WEIGH...THE ...ROUND!!! Give me voters and extend your impacts please. In the end, that is what will convince me to give you the win.

DELIVERY AND POLITENESS: Have a clear delivery, with lots of clash, and be very polite. I did not like rudeness when I was debating; won't tolerate it now when I am judging. Not a fan of flex prep, where cross ex continues during another person's prep time.

After the round, I can give oral critiques, BUT I DO NOT DISCLOSE! I feel the debaters will follow the comments more if they are not distracted by the win or loss disclosure.

Any other questions, just ask me before the round.

I look forward to judging some awesome debates.

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

I have been involved in LD on and off as participant, coach and judge for more than 20 years. I am Tabula Rosa, comfortable with speed and progressive arguments. However, I'm not a fan of kritiks, flex-prep or spreading. Generally, as long as you articulate and explain/defend arguments well, I'm happy.

I'm a first-year judge without a debate background but have been certified in judging Forensics since 2017. I'll flow whatever you tell me to, so make everything explicit. I love good clash, so make sure your answers to your opponents are pertinent. Not the biggest fan of speed. I give top speaks to those who I see as strong and assertive in-round.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

LD:

Experience:
I have been judging LD for the past 8 or 9 years.

Speed:
As a former policy debater and judge, I can follow speed. However, I do not feel that excessive speed is necessary for, or really has a place in, LD debate. If you choose to use speed, then you must be clear and articulate well. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Value, Value Criterion:
You must have both, and must support them throughout the round. You must also convince me that your value and criterion are the better ones in the round and that I should vote for them.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Analysis: I like analysis; don't just read to me. Why does your evidence apply to the debate, and how does it support your case? What makes what you are telling me more important in the round? Your evidence should also be cited and from a reputable source.

Cross-ex:
Cross-ex is for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to berate them and try to prove your superiority. I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:
I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and and why I should vote on them.

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

PF Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

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

• I appreciate effective crossfire, and will listen to it, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.

• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is expected to just read case (though I'm open to teams rejecting this norm), I expect coverage of both sides of the flow starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.

• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make framework arguments in case.

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

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

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

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

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

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

General Overview:

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

Presentation Preferences:

• <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'whiplash' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD and PF, too.

Argumentation Preferences:

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

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

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

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

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

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

Presentation Preferences:

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

Argumentation Preferences:

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

Having debated for two years and judged for an additional 2, I am well-versed both PF and LD.

Unless both teams can agree on a common framework/interpretation of the resolution, I am very strict when it comes the wording of the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "Resolved: Doritos should be the national chip of the United States," I will weigh arguments that are directly pertinent to the US much more compared to arguments regarding countries x,y, and z.

Except for cross, I am very judicious with time. This means I will stop you once my timer goes off and anything said after time will not be considered. When my timer reaches 30 seconds, I will send a message in the chat that says "30" or "30 seconds" just as a warning.

The biggest things I consider when judging is how effectively a team/individual was able to present their argument, as well as how cohesive/clear the argument was. Lively debate is encouraged and some amount of rowdiness will be tolerated so long as it is effective in presenting a case.

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

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

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

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

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

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

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

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

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

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

experience/background

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

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

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

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

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