"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots

For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.

For Lincoln-Douglass: I focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent

I have been involved in South Dakota forensics either as a competitor, judge, or coach since I attended my first tournament as a competitor in the fall of 1993. In high school I competed primarily in policy debate. I'm currently living in the Baltimore Maryland area and hope to become involved in local speech and debate activities again here.

I really appreciate creative, authentic, well researched arguments that show your ability to gain deeper understanding of the topic rather than regurgitate the same arguments that everyone runs every round. As our society is overwhelmed by more and more sources of information it becomes more crucial that people have the ability to critically evaluate data and form rational, evidence based conclusions.

IEs: I have a dark, dry sense of humor and am pretty liberal with what I allow as far content and stylistic decisions, as long as things are germane to the performance and you’re not being exploitive of anyone. Have fun, be authentic, be creative. Don’t be cliche, lazy, or stale. Show ownership of your work. I’m also judging you on your topic/question selection / cutting / research / writing ability. Connect with me. When in conflict, passion almost always wins out over technical proficiency. Sigh, interp is not a contest of who can make the silliest voices. Extemp shouldn’t sound like a debate speech.

LD: I highly value resolutional analysis and definition of terms in LD. Advantageous interpretation of the resolution can drastically swing the momentum of the round from one side to another. The most consistent predictor of my vote in LD is clash and reasoning. Your job is not to do a better job of showing why your case is good - your job is to show why your case is better than your opponent's. I don't like spreading as a strategy in LD - I think it's cheap and lazy and my threshold for adequate response may be lowered. If you do nothing else in your last speech - make a concise closing argument that summarizes the entire aff/neg position.

There may be more in my policy paradigm that would also apply to LD.

PF: I’m still a unpredictable judge in this event. I do not hear many PF rounds as I’m usually placed in Policy or LD judge pools. While the number of rounds I’ve heard has been increasing, I don't yet have what I would call any consistent paradigm beyond rewarding critical thinking. Anything goes I guess. I’ll try to update my paradigm as my beliefs change. Just make sure you tell me where you are and why I care about what you are saying. Framework is a very compelling argument for me and I heavily favor quality evidence over inferences or paraphrasing. There are no arguments that I reject on face or accept unconditionally. The biggest mistakes I’ve seen thus far is teams not using framework arguments to their advantage and teams trying to close for too much. Have a strategy.

There may be more in my policy paradigm that applies to PF.

As a Policy judge I have always considered myself to be a fairly straight forward policy maker. I feel that the skill of adjusting arguments to particular audience is one of the most critical and useful skills learned in competitive speaking and therefore feel strongly that a judge has a responsibility to strive for consistency and predictability in their decision making.

As a policy maker, I am looking for the most advantageous result of my vote using traditional risk-benefit analysis. The winning team in any round I am judging will have provided me a superior "world" after my vote is cast.

While I reject the idea that absence of any particular "stock issue" automatically results in a non prima facie case. I do respect the importance and interactions of the traditional stock issues and am open to argumentation that either suggests a post-vote world is less desirable due to the lack of a particular stock issue, or that from a procedural level the lack of a stock issue (ahem, inherency) is a valid reason to reject.

On the topic of procedural issues, I am very fond of topicality as an argument. Topicality is ALWAYS a procedural voting issue. You don't need to waste your time reading voters or arguing that topicality is not a voting issue. I am looking for competing interpretations of the resolution. The team winning topicality will be the team that provides the most accurate, fair, predictable, etc. interpretation of the resolution. An intelligent, thoughtful, coherent topicality debate is my second favorite thing in the world, and I have two children. Poorly written, "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" topicality arguments are an awful experience for everyone involved and are easily and quickly defeated by most affirmatives. While I rarely have voted for or even on any sort of reverse topicality argument I am open to the concept as an affirmative check on unscrupulous negatives.

Speed: Meh - I understand it is part of the game. I'm not impressed by speed unless it is unbelievably clear. (Spoiler Alert: It's not.) However I will not vote a team down solely because they speak quickly just as I would not vote a team up based solely because they speak slowly. I just honestly don't think it is helping you as much as you think it is. I won't let you know if you are going too fast. If I miss something, that's on you.

Counterplans: One of the absolute best strategies a negative can run. Especially if you've really done some research and prep. I'm annoyed by lazy counterplans. Conditionality is debatable.

Kritiks: I'm not opposed to them but I'm still voting as a policy maker. People rarely choose to run them as a strategy in my rounds so I don't have a lot of experience evaluating them and am therefore prone to making unpredictable decisions. If this is an area of expertise for you, and you do decide to go this route, please be very clear and spend adequate time explaining all aspects or your arguments.

Avoid arguments that are based on the actions/inactions of the people actually in the room. I am not motivated by the idea that anyone in the room becomes a better person because you read something. Everyone is probably just fine as they were/are. If you have beef with something the other team does that you feel should result in them losing the round make some sort of formal complaint.

Round Etiquette: I time everything. Yes you can use your cell phone as timer. Please let me know if you are tracking your own prep as well so I don't have to call out time counts. Speak from where you want, tag team cross-ex is not only fine, but wise to clarify an issue. I don't use prep time for flashing evidence unless it is excessive or obvious that you are prepping while flashing. Don't be a jerk.

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

Policy Paradigm

Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.

Any questions, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am most familiar with a traditional LD case structure (value, criterion, contentions), but if you want to go a different route, I'll listen. I'll vote on any argument that is well-warranted and impacted out.

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Rebekah Tuchscherer (she/her) rebekah.tuchscherer@gmail.com

B.A. in Journalism and Biology, current ophthalmic clinical researcher

• 2023: Debate Judge for Roosevelt High School (Sioux Falls, SD)

• 2018-2020: Lincoln-Douglas Assistant Coach at O'Gorman High School (Sioux Falls, SD)

• Former high school Lincoln-Douglas debater (Milbank, SD)

Public Forum

This event was created with the intention of accessibility, meaning that your speech should be 1) at a delivery rate that is easy to keep on a paper flow, and 2) use high-level debate terminology sparingly. I prefer a speed of about 4-6 on a 1-10 scale, but if I can't understand or keep up with parts of your case, it likely will not make it on my flow or be weighed in the round. Efficiency and effectiveness are key.

The debates I appreciate the most are those when debaters can recognize and articulate when apples are being compared to oranges. I don't like giving points to a team just because they have a bigger number / claim a larger impact, but can easily vote for a team that can dig into the source, organization or methodology used to get said numbers.

Rebuttals:

If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on the opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to arguments made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with strategic thinking and collapsing when necessary.

Summary/FF:

As a judge of mostly Lincoln-Douglas, I LOVE some clear voting issues. I don't think that a line-by-line argumentation style is typically necessary and prefer a nice crystalization.

Crossfire:

Good, respectful and effective cross examinations are appreciated and a great way to up your speaker points.

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans:

Please don't.

Extra Notes

• Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
• I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible.
• Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will have a mountain to climb for a win.
• Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. Please be kind. :)

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.