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.

I have been head coach at Bradley Tech High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 17 years, and just now semi retired. but still helping out with the team for the last two. I have been influential in having students qualify for our State Tournament in all debate categories, and Nationals in Policy Debate. We have focused on Lincoln-Douglas the last 6 years however.

SPEED:
Not a fan of speaking so fast that you pass out in the round. I can usually flow a decently fast speaker as long a you are clear. I will let you know if you are too fast or I can't understand you.

TOPICALITY:
I love topicality! I'm biased because that is how I used to win my negative rounds. HOWEVER, a bad T violation will not persuade me to vote for your side. T violations should be well constructed and given weight, as well as how it impacts the negative adversely. For Aff, definitely give justifiable reasons why you should win the T debate; not just with theory arguments.

DISADVANTAGES:

RUN THEM! Just make sure the impact is strong.

COUNTERPLANS:

RUN THEM! HOWEVER, for the purpose of LD, theory might not completely persuade me to vote against a counterplan, unless the neg side drops it, then I will vote on it.

KRITIKS:

RUN THEM! But you don't automatically win them if you do not understand them yourself. If you run it, run it well!

KRITIKAL AFFS:

Not very clear on these. I understand Kritiks, so if they are run in this manner, I'm on board.

THEORY:

This is my weakest area. Still I will listen, if you are very knowledgeable and can convince me.

Overall, I am very tabula rasa when it comes to debate, and I love to learn from the debates I judge. Which is why I am not too much a fan of extremely high speed debates. So I will listen to pretty much ANYTHING if you can persuade me how you win. I look forward to judging you.

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.

January 2021 edition

Paula’s Paradigm

Salutations Debaters!

Please remember that one of the primary goals for competitive debate is engaging in civil discourse. As a judge, the first criteria I evaluate is civility. Debaters who demonstrate courtesy, good will, and generosity of spirit perform more effectively.

I expect a fair and honest debate from all competitors. Please consider what fair and honest means: If you are an experienced debater and you are running a K or CP, especially against a novice debater, you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Ks and CPs are complex devices intended for Policy Debate. If you apply them to an LD round you are changing the category rules in such a way that disfavors an opponent who has prepped for an LD round. If you plan on running a K or CP, my suggestion is you keep a back-up case in the ready AND prior to the round, you confirm that both your judge and your opponent are comfortable with you running a Policy device. If one of those answers is no, run your back-up case. I reiterate, if you run a Policy device without disclosing it to both your opponent and your judge you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Please do not conflate pre-round courtesy with disclosure theory.

On running counterplans and kritiks: Since these are strategies devised for Policy Debate and not as conducive for LD, they should be carefully crafted and run sparingly. That being said, I welcome a creative take on the resolution in the form of a counterplan or kritik. Bear in mind that I must be able to weigh the round with compatible parameters so if you do run a counterplan or kritik you must clearly define how the round is to be framed so your opponent may adequately respond to your case and I have enough criteria for evaluation. Counterplans must contain both an explicit values structure and CP framework. Kritiks must apply a primary line of argumentation originating in critical theory or cultural criticism. Please note: Ks and CPs place unnecessary burdens on the negative case that the neg must fully accommodate. I will not expect an opponent to refute complicated devices intended for Policy Debate without being provided the structural parameters to do so. Therefore, the burden for structurally framing the round falls on the Neg when running Ks and CPs.

Disclosure Theory: The ability to think quickly on your feet (adapting to your opponent during the round) is one of the most important skills a debater can cultivate and will be weighed more heavily than prepping out before a round. I won't judge against a debater who has chosen not disclose on the NDCA or any other wiki. Any time spent arguing on disclosure grounds (or out-of-round concerns) will be regarded as time that could have been better spent responding to what is happening in the round.

Another point to consider with fair and honest debating is intimidation. Please don’t confuse clash, meaningful offense or attacking an opponent’s case with aggressiveness or badgering during a round. Know that spreading in all its various forms is an intimidation tactic and that I consider spreading an equity and inclusion matter. If you are a fair and honest debater, then you cannot simply assume your opponent can accommodate lightning pace. Please be advised: Speed reading will heavily impact speaker points in a negative direction in addition to potentially losing the round.

If you are a speedy reader, but not intentionally spreading, modulate your pace. If I do not catch your framework due to unintelligibility or lack of clarity related to speed you may lose the round since I cannot adequately weigh your case against your opponent’s. I will not interrupt your speech to ask you to slow down. My expectation is a conversational pace.

Please be mindful of the debate format in which you are competing. If you are a Lincoln-Douglas competitor your primary goal is to engage in the realm of ideas, not policy. If the resolution leans heavily toward a policy topic, the best debaters will devise a case which is philosophical and reflective. When judging an LD round, I’m listening for original thinking, insightful analysis, logical reasoning, and summary skills.

I pay very close attention during cross-examination for strategic maneuvering that will allow a competitor to control the trajectory of the debate.

If you and your opponent craft similar frameworks (e.g, the same value or value criterion), please do not tell me “it is a wash.” Weighing frameworks is never a wash. Framework components do not cancel each other out. Argue your position with analysis and reasoning in order to identify why your case better meets the V/VC and by extension, the resolution.

If your value is morality, tell me what kind of morality and why it is the most suitable choice in the context of the resolution. Please don’t use circular reasoning - “because morality means my value criterion is good” or pretense such as “I choose morality because it encompasses all other values.” Simply reverting to the notion that the word “ought” in the resolution implies a moral imperative suggests that the debater has not spent much time researching the resolution in order to understand its assumptions and implications. When I evaluate a case framework, I am looking for depth suggestive of a debater who is wrestling with the ideas embedded within the resolution.

Do reiterate your impacts throughout every phase of the debate, but bear in mind that (for me) extremist impacts like extinction, nuclear war and planetary disaster are less important to the impact calculus as thoughtful and well-developed impacts germane to the resolution and your chosen framework. In other words, I will be swayed by impacts that are expressed through a philosophical line of inquiry or reasoned through in a way that reveals the most significant issues inherent within the resolution.

I will favor the debater who accurately summarizes evidence, evaluates it, contextualizes it, and most importantly, provides analyses that are both cogent and eloquent. Please take care that you do not mistake your evidence for your own original analysis. Be very careful of how you cut cards so the bulk of your case consists of your own reasoning and your own thoughts about the resolution rather than reading through your sources (reiterating someone else’s ideas). A helpful tip for developing your case and presenting it: think in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations.

Do outline your voting issues, but be wary of getting mired in the minutiae of technicalities that reduce the round to a “gotcha” game. Do not assume that the judge flows in the same way a competitor does. Be mindful of simplistic, but common errors like an unanswered point is equivalent to conceding that point. Technically speaking, in an LD debate round, it is not. If your opponent drops an argument, it is an opportunity for you to expound upon your own position with respect to that point. Signpost your refutations and avoid assertions like "My opponent dropped "X" argument, so you can "disregard it" or "flow that point to my side." Not every argument can be answered during the round. The best debaters will strategically choose which arguments are the most important ones to address. While clash is important, maximizing meaningful clash lucidly, concisely, and succinctly will likely win the debate. Represent your opponent's position accurately and do not claim that an opponent has dropped an argument if your opponent has not.

Economic arguments: All too often economic arguments take some form of: “X is too expensive because it costs Y.” This really isn’t a sound argument. An economic argument of quality should demonstrate some notion of economic theory to justify it rather than simply assuming economics itself is neutral. Be aware that modern economic theory originated in 18th century moral philosophy. All economic arguments should be purposeful and grounded in theoretical or philosophical principles. A case with primarily economic argumentation should be placed within an economic framework (structured into the value/value criterion). I am generally unpersuaded by economic impacts or assumptions that government spending or taxation is bad. The very purpose of the government is to tax and spend. Your goal in an LD round is to provide reasons for why the government (We the People) should tax or spend.

When judging PF I look for teamwork and collaboration -- how argumentation is extended between the two speakers and how well they complement each other. As in LD, I’m looking for excellent organization and critical analysis that addresses the resolutional “pith.” PF teams, please consider the LD issues noted above concerning technical minutiae, original thinking, sophisticated casing, and argumentation that is both sound and valid. I’m looking for original analysis and reasoning through the issues inherent in the resolution. One of my primary concerns in PF is crossfire. Please demonstrate the highest courtesy during crossfire. The team that can establish civil discourse during this phase of the debate will likely be favored in the event of a tie. Maintaining civility during crossfire will help the debater(s) control how the debate is framed for the judge.

As in LD, thinking in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations is essential for PF competition. Develop a few significant arguments with scholarly evidence rather than a large number of arguments so you can effectively utilize the limited time in a PF round. Varsity PF debaters — I look for seamless interaction between team members, the ability to crystallize key points, and to concisely summarize the logical components of an argument.

If I am your judge, please feel free to ask for clarification of any matter addressed in my paradigm.

Happy Day!

Paula Jones

Head Coach, Speech & Debate

Golda Meir High School

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

Hello, my name is Griffin Schauer. I have been involved with debate since I was in high school here in Wisconsin, where I competed all four years in Public Forum (2008-2012). Currently, I am the debate coach for Menomonee Falls High School, and I have judged PF about 3-4 times a year since starting in that role last season. I am also a high school social studies teacher, teaching US History and Economics at the 10th and 12th grade levels, respectively.

In regards to speaking pace, I would label my preference as a “moderate” speed. The biggest concern I have is that speaking too quickly will result in missed information/evidence, which is crucial in determining rounds. You need to get through your speeches at an appropriate pace (which as a PFer myself, I greatly understand the need/desire to cram as much information in as possible), however if I can’t understand what was said, I can’t flow it through the round. I will not give any cues about pace/speed, however I always give a 5 second grace period after the time for a speech has expired. (Additionally, if crossfire ends time on a question, I will allow the asked person to either answer within a reasonable length, or defer to their team’s next speech).

The predominant factor in my evaluation of a round is the quality of arguments presented, as well as the quality of evidence used to support them. I don’t watch a debate to have a show put on as entertainment, but rather to see true engagement in the topic and its argumentation, as well as the learning that comes along with that.

The final focus of a round should be a summative crystallization of the round itself and why your team has won it. Talk about your flows, review your arguments, and show me why I will be balloting your team as the winner. This is not the time to start anything new, add in new insight, or change up ideas from before.

Any argument that is designed to win the round should be flowed all the way through to summary speeches (it is also great to rehash them in final focus, but not expand upon/change them during that time). If your opponents truly drop an argument/contention, you may reference that in later speeches, but opponents still have a chance to bring that up again in their response/rebuttal. In other words, unless your opponent completely drops a point and never references it again, do not make arguments out of “my opponents didn’t bring this up…” if they still respond in a later speech with the necessary argument/contention. Just like in sports, sometimes pointing at a penalty and screaming that it is one over and over doesn’t always make it so.

I would weigh analytics and evidence equally. You need good evidence, but you also need to explain/analyze/connect that evidence to your arguments as a whole. Evidence quotes without sufficient analysis/explanation are just soundbites.

Overall, my perfect round shows respect, sportsmanship, and engagement above all else. Respectful conduct and sportsmanship means controlling tone of voice (I know the difference between being passionate and being aggressive), allowing for ALL voices to be heard, and ending every round with a handshake. Even though you may disagree with this, your learning and engagement in this activity is far more important than who wins and loses, and that all starts with your preparation and composure. The round should go back and forth and focus on the substance of arguments and evidence, not playing games of meta-debate. The winner of that round will, ideally, be the team that convinced me more by the way they connect arguments and evidence to the resolution as a whole. Framework plays a key part in all of this, so make sure to establish one early and connect your arguments and evidence to it. The framework should be your case’s skeleton, not just a cherry on top.

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