Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

POLICY:

-I am a TABS judge.

-Prove abuse on topicality

-Explain link chain in DA

-Must provide either a reason or net benefit for CPs

-I am not well read on K's, please explain them

-I like clash on case

-I am a tech judge

-If you run framework, please explain how your argument fits into it

-Provide me with impact and reasons to vote in the end of the round

-Please don't spread. If I look like I've stopped flowing I have

PF:

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Milwaukee Reagan HS

Were you a competitor when in school? No

How often do you judge public forum debate? Sporadically

Speaking

Do Not Spread

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Argument over style

2. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Equally

Additional Details: I judge novice policy more than PF.

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

Updated:10/17/18

I don't get to judge much due to helping run tournaments in the state. Did 4 years HS policy, 2.5 years at Georgia State. Came back to coach in the Milwaukee Urban Debate League, at Rufus King for 2.5 years, and now starting my 2nd year coaching at Marquette University HS. I am in my 9th year of coaching and judging. I have seen and have heard alot of args.

I love policy debate overall.

My threshold for voting on T and if you are claiming potential abuse is low to none. It hasn't happened in the last year or so.

Any questions, just ask.

Quantum.ShidoWolf@gmail.com

_

Public Forum

Until recently, I have judged mostly Policy Debate. So my views on judging a round stem from that experience. I tend to look at a PF round in pretty much the same way. I am used to looking for what the plan is, what issues are currently there, and how do you solve them. I do however, understand that some PF topics don't tend to nicely allow for this kind of debate. With a few PF rounds under my belt, I have come to shift my focus a bit more on the quality of your arguments in the round.

So things to understand when you debate in front of me:

· Don't speed read. I understand there are time constraints in the round, but In the short constructive times, I don't want to have to try and hear and understand 20-30 different pieces of evidence and arguments. Be clear and understandable.

· Give me a quality framework in which I should be judging the round. For example, If you argue morals are key make me believe it and show me WHY and HOW the round should be judged under that framework.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· If you plan on giving me a roadmap, make it a bit more than just. "I'm gonna go over there stuff, then mine.." Tell me the order of the opponent's arguments you're going to talk about, and then the same for your own arguments. In PF time is limited, knowing where on my flow I need to be looking is helpful.

· If you're going to denounce an opponents source, make sure you have quality evidence to back up the claim. Don't just read something that says "well this small little group says he sucks." or "I don't think that place is a good source.

_

_

_

POLICY DEBATE

It's been a few years since I judged Debate. (you won't see those rounds on Tabroom). But I used to judge both Novice and Varsity. I just recently started Judging again. With that in mind:

My policy paradigm comes from when I debated 10+ years ago under my coach. I have adopted an old-school policy paradigm much like my coach and fellow debaters from that time. I judge and evaluate the round based on what I feel is the best policy for the Unites States under the given resolution. Everything you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president.

Line-by-Line

Speed - I'm not a big fan of speed. So Don't. I understand that because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in a normal debate atmosphere. I understand that. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style, especially in front of the President. Quality, not Quantity, is going to sway my decision. Reading 20 cards in a round does you no good if they are not on my flow. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. Clarity is a big part of this - Especially Tags on Evidence. I give a only few Clear/Slow warnings before I stop flowing.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to just through it out of the round. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

Advantages / Dis-Advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and never allowed back. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. DAs/Advantages that argue Trump good or Trump bad or whatever are still okay in the round. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroy affirmative fiat. So, do not run “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

Counter-Plans - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

Kritiks - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counter-plan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, I'll treat you like a nutcase and throw you out of my office (i.e. I won't vote on it). Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Additional Notes -

1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you.

2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are questioned in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

Judge Name: Andrew M Yep

School: Waukesha South High School

Experience

Yep was never a member of debate in high school. He does appreciate judging and debate. He is usually a policy judge but on occasion does get absorbed into the LD and Public Forum realms. Yep is not up to date on Debate lingo. So be sure to explain things and go slow.

Philosophy

Yep has been called Policy, Stocks and Tabs. Thus he does not know exactly where he fits. Persuasion is important and is enhanced by clarity. He will take into consideration all things he understands in the round that are not dropped. Yep does not like it when a team kicks arguments unless there exists a contradiction a speaker cannot explain away. Personally Yep does not like speed and spread. He prefers quality over quantity. If a speaker feels it is necessary to do a line by line analysis give it the time and do not speed over it.

Topicality - Yep is not against topicality. Words are important in the world. But Yep needs definitions, standards and voters. Also provide analogies and examples of what plans work under the definition and what does not. This helps Yep figure out if there exist a Topicality violation.

Counterplans - Counterplans need to be clear. If the counterplan is not mutually exclusive then a net benefit must be clearly achieved.

Kritiks - Yep is not a philosophy major. Yep does not vote on these often. A speaker may use one but at the risk of Yep being very confused. Be sure to explain the link thoroughly and provide an alternative.

Disadvantages - If Yep misses the link he will be very confused. Clarity is a must. When a DA is introduced Yep firmly believes that minimally it should be linked and impacts discussed in the 1NC.

Structure of the Round and Speaking

Yep likes signposts and likes very clear and slow tags. Yep prefers cross examinations to be closed so that he can judge your organization and understanding of arguments which will reflect into speaker points. If a speaker turns into a parrot that will reflect poorly in speaker points.

Rebuttals

Speakers should summarize the round pull through their arguments. Weigh the round through magnitude, timeframe and probability. Yep likes probability he is a statistics teacher. Obviously certain percentages cannot always be given but we can use word like “certain” or “uncertain”. He enjoys it when speakers question the validity of studies and experiments. Analogies and examples are not only welcomed but encouraged.

Timing & Technology

Yep’s timer is final. He is a little slow in starting it. He tries to let a team know when he is starting it. He will on occasion tell you how much you have left. In regards to technology the prep time will only end when the portable storage device is physically removed from the port of entry and is one its way to the other team or if the the teams opt for an email chain then prep time will end when the opposing team confirms they received the message

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

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

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

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

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

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

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

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

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

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

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

Arguments

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

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

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

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

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

Other Notes

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

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