I am a graduate student in the biomedical sciences at UW Madison. In terms of forensics and debate experience I competed four years in high school forensics (Indiana) and four years of college forensics and debate at the University of Indianapolis (nearly all forensics events and Parliamentary debate). While I had moderate success in high school, I achieved great success at the collegiate level regionally and nationally.

In terms of judging experience, I have been judging for five years at the high school and college levels (locally, regionally, and nationally) in forensics, LD debate, and Public Forum. This is my third year of judging PF on the Wisconsin High School circuit.

In regards to paradigm, I view the debate room as my classroom and thus I aim to make the round as educational as possible for you and to share a bit of the knowledge I have gained over the years. I will disclose the result at the end of the round and discuss how I reached my decision and how I feel each student could do better the next time.

I expect students to be respectful to each other and myself at all times. I am committed to being respectful to you all as well. If this becomes a problem it will be reflected in your speaker points and potentially affect the outcome of the round at my discretion (this is rare and would be discussed in disclosure and on the ballot).

I do flow the round but do not have an issue with normal debate speed. Please though have your speech’s be organized (off time roadmaps are appreciated). If you are going to fast for me I will raise my hand and say speed.

I expect students to time themselves.

I do loosely flow cross and many times cross can lead to significant turning points in the round.

I really appreciate when students weigh the round for me and provide voters and will make the decision mainly on the voters you give.

I understand why arguments are collapsed in PF but in rounds that I am judging please don’t collapse until the summary.

In regards to calling for cards, I encourage debaters to do so when they feel it is appropriate. However, I will rarely call for a card unless a debater asks me to explicitly or there is an accusation of an evidence ethics violation. In that case I will abide by the policies of the tournament.

I sincerely hope this gives you some insight into the approach I take when judging debate. Please let me know before the round if you have any questions or need further clarification.

I was a nationally competitive policy debater for Brookfield Central 1989-1993.

I'm not philosophically opposed to anything per se, but will need to be told why any particular theory-based argument should impact my decision. (That doesn't mean I'm reluctant to go with it, it just means you shouldn't assume a familiarity on my part with current theory.)

Don't assume I know lingo (re: argument theory or current topic terminology). Do assume I am willing and able to be taught.

Speak how you prefer to speak. My skills hearing and flowing high rates of speed exist, but are under a few decades of rust. With appropriate clarity and reasonable volume, I should be fine. It should be obvious to you if I'm not able to follow.

Debate is a competitive activity. I have no problem with playing to win, but don't be mean.

I am new to the PF format, but I think I get it.

Give me a decision framework, or you'll force me to make one up based on your arguments. You'd probably rather have me using yours.

BACKGROUND

I’ve coached Public Forum debate for 5 years. I debated policy in high school and college, as well as coaching policy at the high school level for a couple of years.

PARADIGM

I’m mostly a tabula rasa judge, therefore the following are only preferences.

ARGUMENT

I flow. Speed isn’t an issue, but you must be clear. I’m suspicious of long link chains. I enjoy theory in debate, but please develop your arguments.

Please don’t make me weigh the argument for you. Telling me that your contention outweighs because you say it does or that you save 30 million lives (when the one card you use says a larger process than your proposal may affect 30 million people) forces me to enter the debate. I don’t want to do that. Thus, I am sensitive to probability arguments.

I like topicality arguments, but few public forum debaters know how to make them because they rarely do. Be careful here.

Over the years, debaters who go line by line as opposed to big argument dumps tend to win more with me.

Extend defense in summary

EVIDENCE

Evidence quality really matters to me. Please don’t overclaim it. I’m sympathetic to evidence indicts and suspicious of evidence summaries.

Do not use ellipses to delete large amounts of evidence. If I think you’ve misinterpreted a card, I will call for it, even if your opponents don’t.

I want to hear the source first, before the evidence. Please be clear as to when the card ends and when you begin.

CROSSFIRE

I don’t flow crossfire and don’t vote on it unless it is accurately presented and developed in speech. As such, I do listen carefully to crossfire.

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

---

PF Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

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

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

General Overview:

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

Presentation Preferences:

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

Argumentation Preferences:

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

---

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

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

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

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

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

Presentation Preferences:

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

Argumentation Preferences:

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

I did four years of extemp, congress, and public forum in Wisconsin and nationally for James Madison Memorial High School. I like to see reasonable speaking speed, argument clash, argument weighing, evidence weighing, and concise summary/final focus speeches. Use crossfire wisely to ask questions rather than make statements.

Nelson, Toni

Clean to the Wisconsin circuit, participated in Drama Debate and Forensics in Anchorage Alaska for all four years of high school (we meld it all together instead of separate seasons). Four years of extemporaneous speaking on domestic, foreign and comm topics. In drama categories I participated in Humurous Interp, Readers theater (1st Place @ state) solo and duo acting. Public Forum debate was introduced my Freshman year and I jumped at the opportunity for the fast pace style debate. I ended up moving the next year to policy debate for a more rigorous and challenging circuit, took 3rd at state with a freshman partner.

Because of my forensics background I place heavy consideration on speaking, clarity, flow, and enunciation, speak as fast as you want, I can keep up, but if you start to slur your words you will lose speaker points and of course lose some of your argument in the process. It bothers me greatly to see teams read fast only to have time in the constructive left. If this is the case, continue to use your time by bullet pointing your case/arguments you just sped read.

Public Forum

Maintain a respectable decorum at all times; not a voting issue but will affect speaker points. Do your best to be clear and courteous to opposing team and team mates, particularly during the grand crossfire.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

Arguments made with supporting evidence are great, but logical arguments will also be heavily considered. Watch for logical fallacies, if the other team doesn't call them out I can't vote against them. No new arguments in the closing speeches, use your 2 minutes to wrap up your key points. Points made during crossfire will be considered for voting, so make sure you are as clear as possible.

I retain the right to ask for any evidence that is presented during the debate from either team. Failure to produce evidence that is used to support an argument will result in a loss for the round. For example, if you quote an article or make a claim from a publication and cite the publication be sure you have it with you. Yes, this really did happen once, a team read a tag line from the "New York Times" to support their argument but was unable to produce the article they had just read for the judge. Do not do this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Debate:

Cross Examination with me is always closed, if you want open CX go to PF.

Teams: Use the CX time to listen to the questions and answers and be prepared to fill any knowledge gaps/questions left by your partner in your next speech. I do not vote on issues raised in CX, so if something important was pulled out during CX you must point it out/ create an argument based on it, in your next speech for me to take it into consideration.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

I am open to logical arguments, but know that evidence always holds the upper hand. I am strong proponent of the spaghetti method, throw everything you can and see what sticks, keep that aff team busy trying to answer all your arguments. Arguments or attacks not answered or touched by the opposing team need to be pointed out (extended) in rebuttal speeches or I consider it left on the table by both teams. There is a lot of information being thrown at you in what ends up being a relatively short amount of time, I need to know both teams are paying attention to the whole debate.

The Affirmative team Reserves the Right to Legislative FIAT, or “Let it be done”, for the most part teams do this out of common curtesy but no one use this line of language in their plans anymore. DO not make your arguments about whether congress or the president will pass this plan, for the sake of the debate we debate on the merits of the policy or plan not whether congress can pull its head out of the sand. If these arguments are made, make sure you point them out during the debate.

Topicality is a stock issue, but you need to show why a plan does not fit the resolution. An argument of "our definition of "substantial” is better than yours because it’s from blacks law dictionary" is probably not going to get you a win on topicality but feel free to try anyway (spaghetti). If your arguments boil down to DA or Harms, a topicality attack left unanswered on top of the Dis Ads may put you on the winning side. Some topicality attacks are confused with what really is an attack on inherency, so a perfectly valid inherency attack (which is a stock issue) may not be voted on because your team is arguing it as topicality which shows a lack of knowledge of the debate process, I see this more in novice.

Counterplans are fine, a negative team may also decide to kick their counterplan in favor of stronger arguments this is fine and does not constitute an automatic win for the affirmative.

She/her- you can call me Brittany

experienced in all speech events, congressional debate, PF, and, LD

PF- I'm retired PF coach and have been judging PF for years. I have also judged quite a bit of LD.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said. Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them. They are not useful in pf and rarely tell me anything. Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Default framework is harms vs benefits for all PF. Just because you have a framework and your opponents don't doesn't mean you win automatically. If they fully respond to your framework or lay out their own, even in rebuttal, I'm fine with that.

Generally not interested in non-topical arguments.

Prep Time - Please use your prep time wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be quick about it.

Good luck!

LD- I am a previous PF person coach but have been judging LD on and off since 2007. A lot of my notes will be the same as above honestly cause they apply to both. But I will repeat them here and also add anything else.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said in case (or blocks). Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them unless youre going in a weird order(and ideally dont go in a weird order, I prefer line by line down the flow). Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Generally not interested in completely non-topical arguments. That doesnt mean I wont entertain them potentially in LD as I know theyre very popular. This also doesnt mean I wont entertain arguments like vote neg because this topic is inherently racist, that is still topical. IF you have a non-Kritik case tho, Id recommend you run that in front of me.

Framework is very important- make sure you address it at the beginning- if your frameworks are the same you can just quickly acknowledge that and move on- sometimes kids spend a long time talking about how both teams have a Value of morality and that isnt needed for me. I also dont need you to readdress the framework in later speeches if theyre the same but if theyre different make sure to address it.

Prep Time - Please use your prep time wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be quick about it.

Good luck!

Congress- On the debate side of the ballot: I highly value clash and new arguments. Rehashing old points is unlikely to get you a high score. The one exception is a really strong crystallization speech that does a good job of summing up what has happened in the debate so far (and these speeches are not easy to do well). On the speech side of the ballot: this is a speech heavy activity, more so than any other debate category. Make sure you follow all the rules of a good speech (vocal control and physical poise are polished, deliberate, crisp and confident. Few errors in pronunciation. Content is clearly presented and organized) I prefer extemporaneous style with only occasional note references for evidence specifics (ideally no notes needed, as in extemp). Make sure you cite your sources (and that your speech includes sources).

I did PF for all 4 years of high school, so I'm okay with some speed, just make sure to enunciate. Don't spread. Signposting specific contention numbers is a plus. If you can't disprove someone else's impacts, outweigh them.

I don't flow crossfires, but I do listen to them. If you think something important happened in CX, bring it up in the next speech.

Don't talk/whisper to your partner during their CX or speech. It sounds like a no-brainer, but I've seen it happen enough that I need to say something.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

---

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

---

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

Yang, Susan New to the Wisonsin circuit, but not to the world of Drama, Debate, and Forensics in Anchorage, Alaska. Four years of high school experience in all three categories, with the goal to participate in each category in each competition. Drama experience was primarily in solo acting with emphasis on dramatic monologues, and Reader's theater, with comedic dialogues. Debate experience in public forum debate, when public forum was first introduced to the high school circuit. Forensics experience in original oration, which I passioinately spoke about human trafficking and modern-day slavery. Due to my experience in all three categories, I focus on an individual's speaking. I want clear enunciatioin and a smooth flow. I understand speed is of the essence, but please do attempt to use all your time efficiently to make your resolution.