**Updated 11.02.20**

gmail: william.m.donovan@gmail.com

sensitive material: max.donovan@pm.me (this email is encrypted by proton mail)

please direct complaints to the former as I check it more often.

He/Him/His

TLDR: My opinion is one of many, and this round is just one of many. Treat them as such. Be kind, be open, and be willing to lose for what you believe in– you will have transcended this activity.

Head Coach Madison East High School. Competed in LD, PF, Extemp, and CX on the Colorado/National circuits for 4 yrs in high school. Also Congress.

Truth, kindness, forgiveness, and honesty over tech. It has never been appropriate to manipulate representations of people's lives as part of a game, but it is a practice that has become normalized in an activity that prioritizes winning over truth. If we are to overcome the deadly cynicism of our abundant society we are all responsible for taking radical steps toward treating our lives and those of others as very real. This ideology is central to who I am and it effects the way I interact with debate. Primarily in that I think each round is a real discussion and that I, as a human being and not a blank slate, am inherently a part of it. If you would like to advocate, inform, protest, perform, write, build a coalition, make friends, work on art, learn about government, develop policies, have a conversation, test your ideas against other debaters, etc., I would love to work with you and try to facilitate those projects. To address the elephant in the room– I have nothing against traditional policy discussions but I will not privilege them. I will be thinking about the round from a basis of reality– two debate teams and a judge in a room trying to figure out what to do in the world– unless you give me reason to abandon reality and embark on an illusion with you (there is always room for imagination, theory, and fabulation). If you are here to try and pick up ballots, you probably want to pref me very low, but I think discussions with those you disagree with are often the most fruitful, so maybe email me anyway.

As you might be able to tell, I have little reverence for the structures or constructs of the activity and believe many of them are unnecessary or actively harmful. Time yourselves (or don't), sit or stand, use your allotted time in CX/prep how you want to, but please be respectful of the other people in the discussion. I will only intervene if you are being abusive toward the other students, so if both teams agree to some altered format, please have at it. I think rigid adherence by judges and coaches to traditional structures shuts out student voices, so it is one of my projects not to give special treatment to familiar arguments or debate formats just because they have been accepted into the norm. Debate is a part of our reality though and I am not going to play dumb about shorthand or the history of arguments– there are often reasons certain arguments and formats are popular, but not all of those reasons are good. What is the role of the ballot? It buys us some time from tab to have a meaningful conversation. I will always try to have a good reason for voting, but that reason will not always follow standard course.

My dream rounds are relaxed, concise, and collaborative. This really just means please do your best to approach truth with the other team. Collaboration doesn't require agreement (and often requires criticism), but it does preclude hostility. I do not take kindly to deceit, grandstanding, interruption, or other forms of hostility as strategies. Power comes in solidarity so I am more impressed when abuse is resolved than when it is exploded. Alleging a theoretical violation shuts down productive conversation, but it is crucially important when other teams are acting in bad faith. If you're going to allege a theoretical violation (I include topicality in this category) please gut check the abuse first. When you argue theoretical violations as a strategy you cheapen those arguments for when actual abuse has occurred and shut down meaningful conversation. If you've decided an argument is actually abusive (as in– is a significant obstacle to your ability to participate in the discussion), please provide a comprehensive model of the debate round (e.g. role of ballot/role of judge, competing interpretations v. reasonability, drop the debater v. drop the argument) or I will default to my own standard of reasonability, and I do not think topicality or fairness are essential to a good debate round.

Please be open to admitting fault, apologizing, and to receiving apology when an abuse has been leveled against you. If the transgressor apologizes and changes their behavior I will be very reticent to vote on the abuse. Alternatively, if the abuse is minimized by the transgressor I believe that anger is a valid and righteous form of advocacy on behalf of the transgressed and will not hold it against you.

The cardinal sin as far as I am concerned is an inauthentic advocacy, especially in critiquing another team. Not only are you (k)riticizing the other team's behavior, you are doing so as an exploitative performance of outrage for personal gain. The contents of a K are often a dire call for change from a person who is being suffocated by existing power structures. When you exploit their words as a debate strategy you participate in an act of violent cynicism that takes power from their advocacy and contributes to their suffocation. Please, join a cause if it speaks to you, lift a voice if others need to hear it. I will always assume authentic intent (and I look very negatively on cynical arguments that seek to discredit the authenticity of another team's advocacy– @psychoanalysis). This is just a plea that you critically evaluate your own motivations and ask yourself whether you are contributing to an author's fight or if you are coopting their movement for a ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I have been made aware that my time as an LD debater makes me more amenable to post-modernist critique and psychoanalysis than most policy judges. I do not identify as a utilitarian, a humanist, or a neoliberal and I have spent enough time critiquing those ideas that I do not subconsciously default to them as a framework for evaluating impacts. If anything I lean toward an anarchic deontological model that prioritizes biological autonomy for individuals; political, social, cultural, and moral autonomy for communities; and temporary representative democracies for projects larger than that. I do not believe life has inherent value, but I do believe it has immense potential. Our souls, minds, and lives are not always ours to make or ours to lose, but when given the choice we should pursue life even at the cost of death.

I will talk to you for hours about your cases, my decisions, etc. so please reach out.

Question: Am I a bad judge?
Answer: Maybe? Probably. I'm either dumb or just slow.

Disclaimer: I have not judged since 2021. Go easy on me

Experience: I debated policy three years for Neenah High School (WI) and have been judging/coaching since 2016. I was an ok (subpar) debater with some nationals experience, but I was double 1s so evaluate that however you want. Most of my judging these days is LD but don't expect me to be an expert on the topic. I have judged maybe once this season.

Paradigm: Tabs. I'm good with speed, if I can't understand you I guess I'll say something. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. I am pretty good at following K proper flows. I can have a hard time with heavy theory debates. That being said, feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with.

In Round stuff: I really really really would prefer you to time your own speeches/prep/cross. I am very disorganized and absent-minded so I will probably forget to write down the prep usage or start speech times late if at all. Its also just good practice to be mindful of time in a round.

If its allowed at the tournament put me on the email chain.

Special Notes: You are responsible for the language that you use in the debate round; racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, or any other discriminatory speech will not be tolerated.

-Anything Else-

Feel free to ask me before a round. Chances are you know more than I do, I generally think I know what I'm talking about but I probably don't.

My email is isaacdorn@gmail.com

Email me if you have any questions about your ballot or my paradigm, I'm happy to reply!

-More Detail-

-Affirmatives-

Policy affs with a plantext: Go for it.

Plantext affs with K impacts: Go for it

Non Traditional Affs (advocacy, narratives, performance, kritikal, etc.): Go for it, but make sure to clearly extend case. Also I need a clear ROB so that I know what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

-Negatives-

DAs: Go for it.

CPs (Consult, Process, Agent, etc.): Go for it, make sure there is a clear net benefit. I tend to grant affs a bit more leeway when it comes to solvency as long as there isn't a competitive fiat debate. I also appreciate good explanations of the perm on both sides (i.e. whether there is functional severance, redundancy, works/doesn't work etc.). Some caveats; I have a history of defaulting affirmative on counterplans that I am unclear on or if the permutation debate seemed muddled to me (I am, however, beginning to shift my mindset on this towards tech>truth)

Ks (any kind): Go for it. Love em'. Like I said, I can keep up with K proper flows. Make sure your alt and link are clearly explained. While I like kritiks, I prefer for them to be educational rather than strategically ambiguous. Although I'm comfortable with my literature base, I will not do the conceptual work for you. You must adequately explain the content of your kritik.

T - Let me preface this by saying I have never voted on T. That being said, there are a few things you need to do to win a T debate in front of me. 1) Clear and present standards AND voters 2) In round abuse (which could be strategically planned) or a compelling reason for me to vote on potential abuse 3) Commitment in the 2NR, the argument is theoretically that you can't engage with a non-topical aff, if you spend half the 2NR with offense on the aff that makes your argument less compelling. IMO Topicality is a tool to keep affirmatives in check, I am much more Truth>Tech on the T flow.

-Theory-

Most of my squirreling on panels is usually because my understanding of theory. I didn't really get it as a debater, so most of my knowledge comes from my experience as a judge/coach/just thinking about it. I think my biggest problem with theory is that it is often presented as a series of quick one-liners that don't have a ton of substance. Seeing that I've never been great at flowing my preference is depth over breadth on theory.

(Update) I will not retract my previous statement, however I have developed my thought process some more. When you are engaged in a theory debate in front of me, make sure you have two things. 1) A sufficient claim that you meet your interpretation of debate better than your opponent. 2) Comparative offense calculus so that I as a judge understand why I should care about your interpretation of debate.

I will for sure vote for theory arguments in a debate, if I can understand them.

IN LD:

The WDCA requires that I add the following to my paradigm

Apply all of the above and...

Framework: Framework is an important aspect of your case and should not be neglected. Don't ignore offense on your FW.

V/VC: I don't need to see a Value/Value criterion in your case in order for me to vote for you. But you are responsible for making a cohesive argument as to why it is important for you to ignore this structure.

Plantexts: Go for it. I come from policy so honestly I would prefer a plantext.

CP: I think a CP is a fundamental part of your offensive toolkit on the negative and you should take advantage of this as much as you can.

Kritik: Kritiks are great. Don't expect me to do the legwork for you though, see above for specifics. Extend your evidence.

What I vote for in LD: Generally I will be voting for the team which understands their case more. Refer to my paradigm for what I like to see in a round.

Tabula rasa, will default to Policy or Stock issues (Depending on whats easiest for me to evaluate, Don't let me do this).

Background: 3 years policy debate in northern Michigan, judged novice/JV for Detroit Urban Debate league while in college.

Speed: Ill say clear 3 times, after third time ill stop flowing until I can understand. Slow down your tags from the rest of your speech and you should be fine.

K: Generic K's are Bad, Strong links are good. If you run a K, make sure you really take the time to explain your link.

T: T is my favorite argument as a judge. T, Extra T, FX T, I love it all but only when it actually has in round impacts, otherwise its pretty useless. Best way to prove in round abuses is to point to actual arguments made in the round as "This is why you need to vote for us on this"

Idk how flashing evidence works anymore but back in my day, teams either had to provide a viewing laptop or a USB stick. Whatever way is agreed upon before the round starts Ill allow. I will always side with the team with less technological availability when settling disputes. If a team is unable to provide their opponents with a copy of their speech, they will forfeit the round.

tag teaming/Open CX: I'm ok with this as long as it isnt abused. If its just a couple questions throughout CX then thats fine, but if it becomes abusive Ill dock speaker points, but it won't effect the rounds outcome.

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.

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 16 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2022-23: 7 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

1. I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
2. Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
3. I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
4. If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
5. If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

1. Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
2. Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
3. I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
4. Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
5. Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
6. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

Daniel Montalvo - Ronald Reagan HS head coach

AFF/NEG split - 2/12

Quick Facts:

• Speed is fine, just be clear and enunciate (I’ll only allot 2 “clears” before I stop flowing)

• No such thing as a tabs judge, you know this, but I will keep it close

• Do what you do best. I’ll vote on anything just tell me why (impact calc, analysis, what outweighs what, etc.)

• Most of my background is in policy until recently. Fairly newer to LD but still pretty progressive and can appreciate a clash heavy and meaningful debate

Long Version

Background: I debated policy for Ronald Reagan all four years at the city/state/national level. Currently studying hospitality + revenue management at Cornell and head coach for Ronald Reagan HS. I’ve seen all sorts of arguments and am pretty well-versed with policy strats and arguments all around.

P O L I C Y

Case: “What is left on both sides? Is there enough to move on to off case positions if the case is held?” is usually my line of thinking.

DA’s: Go for it. Not a fan of base/politics disads but I’ll vote on them.

CP’s: Make sure they are competitive. Don’t be abusive. Consult CP’s are not my favorite...

Topicality: I like T. Author debates, counter-interps, reasonability, K-T, and framing all play their roles and can make great argumentation if executed well. Ensure there is in-round abuse and do the work to get me to vote on it. If you aren't going 5 minutes of T in the 2nr that means it was probably a time suck and not well developed enough for the ballot.

K’s: My personal favorite, go for it. I’m well versed in cap, abolition, and race/identity K’s, but I will not do the work for you. I love the idea of epistemological dangers the aff may overlook or perpetuate. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, though. I will be as objective as possible and still expect decent analysis and contextualization of your arguments.

K Affs/Performance: K affs/performance have been dying down on the Wisconsin circuits but I have seen them at nat circuit tournaments. Not my area of expertise so do enough work on the aff and display why your advocacy, performance, and/or negation of the resolution effectively challenges the implications you argue for.

Theory: Blow it up. If the other team does something inherently damaging or abusive in the round, you have every right to point it out for the ballot. I can handle high level theory, though these debates can get muddy in their development so please keep them as organized as possible. I won’t vote your way just because you shout “that was abusive!”

L D

** most of my judging philosophies from policy apply to LD. some key things to note:

FWK/VC: I understand a ton of framework shells get reused as topics change but there can be dozens of the same ideology/epistemology shells with key nuances that differentiate between sides and can make for a very intricate flow. Always evaluate these differences before collapsing into your opponent's framework to maintain clash on the flow.

M I S C

• Keep the round clean and organized. Poor/sloppy structure that impacts my flow will be reflected on your speaker points

• Loud/gaspy spreading gets really annoying, especially in smaller classrooms and through computer audio so be cautious before you do it

• Any -isms or -phobias “good” arguments and I’ll drop you

• You know the drill -- have fun and don’t stop learning!

• Also, put me on the email chain and feel free to contact me if you have any questions montalvodaniel51@gmail.com

Background:

I debated for Mukwonago starting in my sophomore year. Novice year was policy, the next two years were PF. Since high school, I've judged on and off for Muk, and am now their assistant coach.

Affiliations:

Mukwonago

Hansen

Policy: I'm going to vote on the best policy, however, if you miss something big, that could very well be a voting issue for me should that thing outweigh your impacts. On the Aff, I like solvency. If you run nothing pertinent to harms, at least get some solvency in. On the Neg, I don't care about on case. Give me disads, counterplans, theory, and kritiks (I particularly enjoy those). I love theory qnd framework as well; easily my favorite argument in all forms of debate. I'm typically a PF judge, and I did PF through most of my debate career, so speed is a no no.

LD: Give me a good framework debate. I'll vote on best framework and who fits that framework best. I will not vote on plans, and I will not vote on counterplans (unless at national style tournament). If you choose to run a plan or CP, that's your prerogative, but understand that I won't vote for it. It may be an interesting way to create an argument that's merely a time suck, and I'm definitely cool with that, but if your opponent has read this at all, they'll know not to touch it because I won't vote on it. The WDCA does not allow these, therefore I will not flow them. Again, I was a PF debater, so no spreading. If I can't hear you, I won't flow.

PF: I won't necessarily weigh a round exclusively on speaking skills and how good of an orator you are, but it will certainly help your case, especially if it's a tough decision.

No matter what, I want to see impact calc. I pity the fool who don't do impact calc. I don't care how cool inflation might be, if you don't give me any dead bodies, I likely won't know what to do. Always weigh the round in the final rebuttal, make it as clear to me as possible that you're winning. Be polite to your opponents always. Being snappy made PF need to sit down during cross, so be nice. If you have something absolutely ridiculous like some kind of a kritikal aff, feel free to use it in front of me. I will absolutely vote on stupid things provided they're executed well (i.e. Death is the end of human suffering, and therefore whichever side kills the most amount of people should win the debate; meme/joke cases, Performance AFFs). The only catch is to go all in with those, or don't do them at all. Go big or go home, there is no in between.

Email is timpeplinski96@gmail.com

(send memes)

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

PF Paradigm – I come from a policy debate background and until recently have been almost exclusively a policy judge. Due to this, I know that I tend to view rounds under a somewhat policy framework. What is the plan, what are the problems, and how does the plan solve these problems? I also understand that not every PF topic is going to fit nicely into this mold. To help mitigate this tendency I am looking primarily to the quality of argumentation in the round.

What does this mean for you?

· I am looking for a round where the debaters are clear and understandable, willing and able to give good arguments.

· I much prefer a single quality argument over 5-10 short arguments with no substance and I ultimately want the debaters to tell me why the world is better under their plan or side of the topic than the opposing team.

· 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.

· Give me a reason to vote for you. Tell me what is important in the round and why it is important. If you don’t, I default to a utilitarian evaluation of the round.

· I am perfectly willing to listen if you have evidence that says a source is bad, but you need to have evidence. I’m not going to drop a card just because you don’t personally like an author. In addition, saying that a source is biased can be a decent attack, but you need to give me evidence that disproves the source in addition to this.

Ultimately, if you focus on good argumentation, you should do just fine in front of me.

Policy - I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the United States under the given resolution. In the round, you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.

Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking speed and that is fine given the time constraints in the round but there is no need to speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.

Topicality – This is something that I feel can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing it in the round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First, the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.

Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place where most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real-world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.

CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.

K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real-world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.

Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in the round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategic option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.

I’ve been debating for four years at Ronald Reagan high school. I’ve seen a multitude of arguments. I’m sure anything you run I’m able to handle, but the information below is more specific for each argument.

Speed- I’m not a fan, I’ll give three “clears” before I stop flowing. If I don’t flow, then your arguments won’t count. Hopefully this isn’t too much of an issue at the novice level.

Cross ex- Open cross ex is fine, but don’t dominate cross ex, I’ll dock speaker points. I don’t want to know if “it’s your cross ex” or not, so please be nice to both your opponents and partner.

DAs- These are fine, please provide a link, uniquessness and impact. The impacts should be explained thoroughly.

Ts- Explain the voters well, or else this won’t matter. I need to know the violation and it should be obvious in order to vote on this.

Ks- I have an affinity towards these

email: sierra0926@gmail.com

Speed – I haven’t been judging debate enough to keep up with my practice of listening to speed. I am sure after hearing a round or two I may be back to my coaching days. However, I would caution on the side of speaking slower than what you may be used to, so that I may ensure I follow the entirety of the debate. I understand the advantage of having multiple arguments on the flow. I would be more impressed with the way arguments are used within the round.

Arguments – All germane arguments are on the table.

Critical Arguments – When I listen to critical arguments I really appreciate if the tenets or the claims are threaded throughout the entire debate. This goes for both sides. Those who propose the critical argument should provide a general summation of the argument and then provide the important “pillars” of the idea. Those opposing the idea should consistently find time within their speeches to (re)iterate the “why” as to their winning their position.

Judge as Judicator – My intention is to try to remove all bias from my decision within the round. I try to maneuver in such a way that I examine what arguments were presented and how were the speakers “using” them to persuade me to either side. This means I try to create good flows. Clarity and an appropriate speed and volume are essential. As an educating activity FIRST, we must all work together to make the activity enjoyable for the simple fact of learning something new. Therefore, all EDUCATION voters will be a big thing for me in any theory debate. Furthermore, I would implore the speakers to use the founding principles of the movement of debate (i.e: extensions, cross-applications, direct clashes, etc.). I would even go so far as to ask that you blatantly use these words when you are performing the skill. This helps me “envision” the flow of the debate round with more clarity which will ensure a fairer decision.

Prep Time – I will keep my own time for the speeches and prep. My clock will be the primary clock referenced in round. Flashing a constructive will not be timed. Asking to see a specific card before your team’s speech will be timed when the piece of evidence is presented, or 30 seconds has elapsed. I do it this way to ensure fairness for both parties. If the opposition team is taking to long to find the card that was asked for after hearing it read, then they gave their opponents a free 30 seconds of prep time. Both teams are subject to this standard of accountability. This means cards should be called for at the top of the cross examination period by the questioner and the partner of the opposition should be searching for the request while cross-examination continues.

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.