Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Speed:

If I am unable to understand what you are saying, especially when you are reading cards, I am not going to flow it. In my opinion, both your opponent and myself need to be able to understand what you and your cards are saying in order for there to be a debate. So if you want to speak fast, then you are most likely not gonna get my vote.

Framework:

I consider framework as a way to view the round. When debating framework, I prefer arguments that pertain to the context of the resolution more so to the arguments against the actual theory. For example, there is a common card to use against KCI that talk about how Kant does not allow for rebellion. However, in the context of space appropriation, rebellions against the government are not topical (or at least of what I have seen) and therefore is not really an argument against KCI in the context of the resolution.

Contentions:

I don't have a preference of what you run for contentions but make sure it makes sense, is clear, and that it aligns with your framework. I weigh analysis more than examples.

Voters:

Make sure to weigh your points under the framework and weigh frameworks in both a vacuum and in the context of the debate.

Extemp:

In the introduction, make sure you filter to your question just like you do when writing a paper. The introduction should provide the general background necessary to understand your speech and also establishes why your topic/issue is important. The introduction should be no more than 1:00-1:15; I more curious about your answer to the question as well as how your analysis supports your arguments than an introduction.

Make sure your main points are clear and distinct. Make sure your presentation in each point is logical and clear in reaching your argument. Make sure your points answer the question as it is worded. If you question has to do if so and so can do something, then you best talk about if they can and not about if they should or would.

Use sources for a purpose and properly introduce them. For citing sources, I expect publisher, date (not just the year or time reference like just last week), and realistically you should be citing the author as you do when writing a paper. After citing your sources, make sure to provide analysis and that the analysis is new. You should not be saying the same thing, in different words, as you made your point and need to move on.

Make sure to have transitions like you do when writing a paper. That is there, should be topic sentence and a concluding sentence that transitions your speech to your next main point.

Your conclusion should only be about 45 seconds and make sure to restate your question and a brief (one or two sentence) summary of each of your points.

Background

I did varsity policy debate and Domestic extemp for 4 years at Watertown, SD high school. During that time I qualified for NSDA Nationals 2 times in policy debate and was a 3 time place winner at the SDHSAA state tournament. I judge fairly consistently throughout the season.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

LD Paradigm

I have started judging more LD since policy is no longer a thing in South Dakota. I don't have a super deep understanding of all the philosophy but I do generally understand most of the frameworks I've heard. For me, I prefer a good framework debate backed up with solid contention level arguments. If you can put those two things together I am usually pretty happy. I prefer debate with clash. If you plan on both agreeing to the same framework you will need some good offense on the contention level.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

PF Paradigm

I enjoy it when there is good, legitimate clash within the round that extends past the first 4 speeches of the round. Impact things out for me. If you are going to be reading framework in the round relate your contention level arguments back to your framework. Weigh your framework against theirs and tell me why I should prefer yours.

If a card is called for, to me, this is dead time in the round. No one is doing anything. The team that needs to provide the evidence finds it swiftly, the team who called for the evidence looks at what they need to see with their prep running, and then we resume with the next thing in the round whether that be a teams prep, cross-fire, or a speech. If you are looking for evidence and your partner is prepping, your prep will be running.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

Policy Paradigm (A thing of the past in SD)

Speed- No preference. I only evaluate what I have flowed, and if I can’t understand it chances are it’s not flowed. I don’t need a copy of the speeches, I will ask for cards at the end of the round if I need to look at something.

Tag team CX- Prompt your partner, or provide tags and dates, but don’t dominate if it’s not your CX.

Prep- I don’t take time for flashing unless it becomes excessive. I will more than likely not stop prep when you ask me to, so beware of that. If you tell me to end prep, and you are still talking and typing on your computer, prep will keep going. Prep stealing will not be tolerated.

T- Don’t run it as a time suck. I rarely will vote on potential abuse, even if clearly dropped by the aff. My view is that T is all or nothing, so if you’re going to close for it, you had better be doing 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. Aff is presumed topical until shown otherwise. That being said, if they are truly not within the resolution—I will be more likely to vote on T.

Disadvantages- If you are not reading a DA on the neg you better have something to blow them out of the water. I tend to be very easily persuaded by no link analyticals and uniqueness overwhelms the link claims made by the affirmative. I think that there needs to be a clear link between affirmative action and the scenario that the neg is proposing. You the DA as leverage against the aff’s advantages. I am a huge fan of disad solves case arguments. Politics disads typically turn into a wash for me, absent a huge mistake by the affirmative. I don’t think that the link story of Congressional members ditching their parties or the whole Congressional body switching their votes from the Uniqueness that has been read are even mildly plausible.

Kritik- I was never a big fan of them when I was debating. If you are going to run one and want me to vote on it, you must do several things. First—have an alt that is very similar to a 1AC’s plan text, something that can actually happen if I were to vote negative. Second, you have to have clear solvency for that alt. I will be weighing the K against the aff’s advantages in terms of comparative solvency.

Counterplans- I think that CP’s should challenge the aff’s advocacy or provide a better method of solving the impacts in the aff case. The counterplan must be non-topical, otherwise I will almost immediately vote aff on the perm. In the same fashion as K’s I will be weighing the CP against the aff case in terms of comparative solvency. The CP must solve the impacts of the 1AC—otherwise running the CP is pointless in my mind. CP has to have a clear Net benefit that is not “It’s better than the aff”. You need to have something bad that the aff plan would trigger, but the CP avoids, this is where your generic disads come into play.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

I prefer debate that is suitable for a courtroom. Professional, clear, and well organized. Usually frameworks are a waste of time.

7/10 on speed, so long as your tags are clear, you're not using speed to obfuscate or misrepresent evidence, and voters are delivered intelligibly.

Policy: I am most comfortable judging a stock-issues oriented policy round. In particular, solvency arguments can be decisive. Generic DAs are fine, but a specific link to the 1AC will always be more compelling. K's are fair game as well, but I tend to want a more specific link for a K than a DA. Common Ks like the Cap K or Fem K are exceptions to this - those Ks are common enough that the Aff should be prepared to debate them regardless. I take a tabula rasa approach to any question surrounding the "role of the ballot," so if you win ROB in a particularly favorable fashion, it can set you up very nicely.

LD: I am extremely comfortable evaluating framework arguments. I prefer a Value/Criterion framing structure for LD, but won't complain if you do something different, so long as you meet the resolution (assuming it isn't a K aff - I tend to view Ks as Neg ground).

General: I expect a bit more than simply regurgitating pieces of evidence. Analysis isn't necessary for every piece of evidence, but if there is a string of cards building some sort of overarching argument, one or two sentences wrapping it up shouldn't be too much to ask. This is especially true for any rebuttals!!

There is almost no chance of me voting for an RVI, unless there is a case of in-round abuse.

"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

Classic LD: Value, Criterion, Contentions

Rounds are evaluated with emphasis on the strongest logical arguments, sometimes supported with evidence.

I appreciate frameworks and burdens arguments that lay out the parameters of the debate - especially when you follow through with it, and it’s not just a 1x statement at the beginning of a speech never to be referenced again.

I enjoy well-thought out arguments, clash, organization, and arguments that continue to evolve throughout the round, not just repeated.

Spread and high speed are not tolerated. I will flow only what I can understand.

And while all of that might come off as a little grumpy, I assure you I am not. This is an enjoyable event, there are things that we can all learn from each other, and respect for your opponents, teammates and judges is a great starting point to have a good time, no matter the outcome. Have fun and learn something

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

To all debaters:

If you have any questions, let me know before the round begins.

Please be respectful in the round. Overly aggressive questioning, condescension, or insulting behavior will be commented on the ballot for your coaches to see. It may not affect the outcome of the round, but it's very important nonetheless.

Public Forum paradigm:

I am a PF coach and did PF in high school, so I am very familiar with this form of debate.

Beware running squirrel framework, I'm unlikely to be convinced unless it is well-justified or the opponent fails to point out its abusiveness/inaccuracies/etc.

For summary, I prefer line-by-line and then impacts at the bottom.

I like voters and impacts in the final speech - line-by-line is a bit rushed for 2 minutes.

Speed is okay - don't speak faster than I can understand you. If you are stumbling over words and not being concise that will not help you.

I am unfamiliar with Ks in PF. If you run a K, you have to explain it well.

In terms of what I look for in a win, if you cover all points on the flow and make a stronger case for/against the resolution that is a sure win. A stronger case for/against essentially means that taking all the evidence together that has been introduced AND extended throughout the round, one side is preferable to the other.

LD paradigm:

I did not do LD in high school but I am a philosophy major in college and have judged LD several times, so I understand discussion of value/criterion and philosophers. But, of course, make sure to explain the value/criterion well.

That being said, I would stick to more "traditional" LD arguments since I'm not as familiar with LD.

Value/criterion do matter more than contention-level, but I expect both to be covered effectively. It is especially important to win contention-level if you concede to your opponent's value/criterion.

Line-by-line argumentation works best for me.

Speed- same as PF.

Public Forum since 2014.

Debated (mostly) Policy for Vermillion HS from 2009 to 2014. Bachelor's from Beloit College with a major in Philosophy and a minor in Political Science.

I'm looking for a focus on clear argumentation and strategy, but do what you do best and you'll do fine.

Tech > truth except in rare cases.

PF - I have minimal PF judging/debating experience and no strong preferences. Don't go crazy fast.

LD - I did LD debate in South Dakota from 2009-2014 and judged a little during that time. I haven't done much judging since so if there's new lingo I'm probably not familiar. I'm comfortable. with traditional and K theory but still want it explained and applied well. Value/Criterion debate is important but won't win the round by itself - I don't care if your framework is the best unless you convince me that you've won under it. I'm probably a 4/10 on speed since I'm rusty. Open to basically any argument/strategy, just make sure you're ready to argue it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Major Issues:
The debaters are responsible for identifying, defining, and establishing the key issues in the round. I will vote on whichever is the strongest-argued, and while that does sometimes come from a large spread of evidence, it is the interpretation and management of those issues that ought to determine which side outweighs the other.

For example: if both sides agree to debate which of them is more just, that refines the debate to a discussion of that metric. Each can determine how they get to "more" in their own way, but that can happen along a multitude of approaches as magnitude and volume are not the same thing. Debaters should read the round attentively and be prepared to follow the arguments, gaining offense along the way while not leaving arguments available for opponent' extensions.

Plan Text, Solvency or Kritik:
I'll hear just about any argument, but if the debater cannot tell me why that is the better option for framework arguments, I'll default to value and criteria. Clash should be clean and accurately reflect the burdens that each debater accepts after the first two speeches.

Speaker points:
30: your round is suitable for a tournament final
29: your round is suitable for a tournament semifinal
28-27: your round is suitable for a winning record

My background:
I am a 10th and 12th grade English and composition teacher with a literature, rhetoric, and philosophy background. I have served as an LD coach from 2012-2016 and 2020-2021 and am very experienced with both the activity and its myriad topics.

I did Congressional Debate, Debate (PF & LD & World Schools) and I did almost all the events for Speech. I have been involved since 2013 as a competitor until I graduated in 2019. I went to nationals 5 times, once as a middle schooler in Extemp, Freshman year I went into the house, Sophomore year I went in World Schools and my junior and senior year were both into the Senate. I was fortunate in my senior year to make it into the semifinals.

Congressional Debate: I want to see some clash, point out points of the other Reps/Senators from the opposing side as well as your own. The debate should taper- meaning the first couple of people bring up all the new points and the last few shouldn't be all new points they should summarize the debate. Ask good questions, don't waste your time. The speeches should flow and not be choppy.

LD Debate: I am not scared of technical terms since I was primarily an LD debater. I want there to be a clash on the Value and Criterion level especially. Since you are using technical terms don't think you can just leave holes in your case or arguments and expect me to fill them for you. Questioning I want to see good questions being asked, clarification is fine but they shouldn't all be clarification. At the end of the debate tell me why you should win not why your opponent lost, I am just going to assume you don't have any offense left. I am NOT a fan of spreading, I want to see a good debate and in my opinion, spreading hinders that.

PF Debate: I want to see a clash from each speaker not just the second from each team. At the end of the debate, I am looking at the amount of evidence and recency of that evidence. At the end of the debate tell me why you should win not why your opponent lost, I am just going to assume you don't have any offense left.

1. Debate background:

1. Judged High school debate for (9 years);
2. Assistant debate coach for 2 years.

2. Judging:

• I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
• I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery

Policy:

I'm okay with any kind of argument from Ks to Theory to DAs, I'm not fussy. Though I do have a history of not finding Topicality arguments particularly compelling unless they're well-ran and the case really is untopical.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

I'll weigh the round however you tell/convince me to, but my default is just standard Utilitarian, and caring about real, in-round abuse over the hypothetical worlds of Aff and Neg.

LD:

I care about the Value and Criterion debate, and I think you should too. I'm going to weigh the round however you convince me to weigh the round, and this can be a huge strategic advantage to whoever wins this point.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

Public Forum:

I'm paying a lot of attention to the flow and to the warrants of the arguments; I'm not a "speaking skills" style judge. (Unless you're rude or something, but that's a different issue). If you're using framework and bring it up in your final speech, make sure you explain why it gets you an advantage or why it's relevant.

Updated 1-2024

Please feel free to include me on any email chains or share evidence that you want reviewed via Eric@dakotahomestead.com

Background

I am a former policy debater who has coached and judged all forms of debate and speech since 2005. I am a volunteer assistant coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls with my focus shifting to coaching Public Forum debate as of 2020-2021. In my day-job, I am an attorney and the president of an insurance holding company that oversees a variety of real estate focused businesses throughout South Dakota.

Public Forum

Similar to Policy and LD, I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, including crossfire and overviews. Rate of delivery is not an issue for me as long as you are relatively clear and understandable. I evaluate Public Forum as a Tabula Rasa judge and consider the arguments focused on by each side in the Final Focus to be the main arguments to evaluate in the round. Absent framing or a weighing mechanism proposed by either side, I default to a policy making analysis from the perspective of the actor in the resolution. Tell me why you should win based on the arguments on the flow from the round and how to evaluate them. Winning on individual arguments without guidance as to why that argument matters in the context of the resolution is a common problem I see. I prefer clash between teams on key issues compared to each side repeating their own claims without addressing the other team's.

While I primarily coach Public Forum and am familiar with the evidence and arguments on the current topic, do not assume that all participants in the round are and debate accordingly. On most judge panels, you should focus on the paradigms and preferences of the other judges as I will go along for the ride rather than advancing an argument or rate of delivery that I find acceptable at the potential expense of the round. With that said, just like with Policy and LD, I believe that the round is up to the debaters, so tell me why something matters and why you win, and I will evaluate it accordingly.

Lincoln Douglas

Prior South Dakota State Debate Lincoln Douglas Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your Lincoln-Douglas judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate: (Mark “X” on all that apply)

X A. Coach of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

B. Former Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach

C. Former Lincoln-Douglas Competitor

X D. Former collegiate and/or high school policy debater

X E. Frequently judge Lincoln-Douglas debate

X F. Coach of Policy Debate

X G. Coach of Individual Events

H. No Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience

2. I have judged 18 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

3. I have judged: (circle or highlight one)

Typically between 15 and 30rounds of L-D by the end of the season

4. Indicate your attitudes concerning the following typical L-D practices:

A. RATE OF DELIVERY (circle/highlight your answers)

No preference | Slow, conversational style | Typical conversational speed | Rapid conversational style

1. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? Yes No

2. Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? Yes No

B. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CRITERION IN MAKING YOUR DECISION? (circle/highlight one)

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. (unless advocated otherwise during the round)

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes No

C. REBUTTALS AND CRYSTALLIZATION (circle/highlight one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include: a) voting issues b) line-by-line analysis c) both (I default and usually prefer voting issues, but it is your round so you tell me what you think is important in determining a winner)

2. Voting issues should be given:

a) as the student moves down the flow b) at the end of the final speech c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are: a) absolutely necessary b) not necessary (strongly preferred but not required).

4. The use of jargon or technical language (“extend,” “cross-apply,” “turn,” etc) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable b) unacceptable c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How Do You Decide The Winner Of The Round? (circle/highlight the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

(Circle/highlight your preference)

Not necessary----------Sometimes necessary----------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Circle/highlight the option that best describes your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater’s case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

Policy Debate

2017 South Dakota State Debate Policy Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

Your experience with policy debate (Mark all that apply with “X”):

X A. Coach of a policy debate team

______ B. Former policy debate coach

C. Policy debater in college (Where? )

X D. Policy debater in high school

X E. Frequently judge policy debate

______ F. Occasionally judge policy debate

Which of the following best describes your approach to judging policy debate?

A. Speaking Skill D. Hypothesis Tester

B. Stock Issues E. Games Player

C. Policymaker X F. Tabula Rasa

Circle (or highlight) your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

RATE OF DELIVERY (X No Preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Rapid

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS (X No Preference)

A few well-developed arguments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments

the better

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive issues

most important most important

TOPICALITY – I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely vote on topicality

COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

OPTIONAL: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses to items 3-12, write those comments LEGIBLY on a separate sheet of paper.

Eric Hanson’s Additional Comments

I truly believe that each round is the debaters to do with what they want. Evan so, here are my preferences and some common criticisms I have for teams:

When running theory and Kritik’s, just prove to me you understand them and how they apply in this round. Do not just read a shell that someone else has prepared without understanding the underlying criticism that is being levied.

Please write out Counter Plan and Perm text.

I have a very expansive view on Topicality. I will listen to and vote on in round abuse, potential abuse, and competing interpretations. That does not mean that I vote on potential abuse or competing interpretations just because you say those words. You must actual prove to me that your definition is the best one for debating the resolution or that the other team’s is just so flawed and abusive that it cannot stand.

When extending warrants, it is preferable to say more than just “Extend my partners warrants.” Take the extra few seconds to actually state the warrant of the argument.

When considering impact calculus, I give weight to all three parts (timeframe, probability, and magnitude). If a team tells me to give little weight to a massive DA impact because the probability is so small, that will factor into my evaluation.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

As a Tabula Rasa judge, I really appreciate it when the 2NR / 2AR actually explain why the win the round and in what framework / paradigm I am supposed to view the round when evaluating.

You probably do not want me to guess at how you wanted me to evaluate the round.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

Public Forum

I am a former policy debater. This does not mean I would like Public Forum to be policy, but I will value heavier content debates. Nothing is off limits, but do not use speed or unconventional arguments merely to overwhelm your opponent.

I really value organization and continuity. Build upon your partner's previous speech and stay organized in addressing your opponent's case.

Don't just repeat the taglines of your points. You should always be arguing the specifics of the causal relationship to an impact, the full weight of the impact, and how the impact ways against your opponent's.

Use cross fire to your advantage. If you can ask good questions and the other team does not provide solid answers, use this in your speech.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

History:
I have judged South Dakota debate for the past 18 years. During my High School years, I competed in Policy, Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I don't judge as frequently anymore, but do normally get a couple tournaments in each year.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I am a traditional LD judge looking for a value debate. Tell me why your value is supreme and how you better uphold your value or achieve your opponent's value.

Contention debate is important, but you need to win/uphold your value for the contention to hold weight.

Crystalize your debate in the end and give my your voters. Tell me how to vote and why you win. If you make the decisions for me and show me why, it is less decisions I have to make on the ballot and more likely to go your way.

Public Forum Debate

For an "On Balance" topic, I'm going to weigh out the two sides. You don't have to win every point in the round, you don't even have to argue every point, you need to show why, on balance, your side wins.

Write your ballot for me, tell me why you win this and why this is most important.

Speed:
I learn the older I get and less I judge, the harder it is to keep up the flow. I'm probably a 5 on a scale of 10 for speed.

I am a current college student and was a four-year public forum debater and extemporaneous speaker. I value weighing your evidence against your opponents. You need to make it very clear why your arguments are the most impactful in the round. Make sure this is extended from summary to final focus. I will not do the work for you. I will not take into account any new refutations presented in the second summary. I have no problem with speed and am open to any arguments within the rules. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

If you prove to me that you're winning on the flow, then I'll vote for you. Framework is important if it's carried throughout the round and given sufficient justification. I like when teams have clash on big points of contention in the round. Don't read so fast that it becomes a detriment to your ability to articulate your words. Respect each other, please.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

Hello! I'm a first-year assistant coach, former debater, and flay judge from South Dakota. I did LD, IX, and CD in high school but am focusing on PF and USX/IX as a coach. The LD and PF sections below are geared towards traditional-style rounds of each event, because that is the style I encounter most often, I am most familiar with, and regarding which I can more accurately describe my paradigm. However, I am open to non-traditional styles, arguments, and approaches as long as you can make sure I know where you're going throughout, without the aid of excessive speed. (To wit, I am (in)famously the judge who voted on disclosure theory at Cavalier Invite.) Please feel free to ask before the round if you have any questions.

LD

I'm most familiar with traditional-style LD. Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, this is how I evaluate all such rounds.

1. Which value better satisfies the moral obligation of the resolution?
2. Which criterion better achieves the chosen value in (1)?
3. Whose contention-level arguments better meet the chosen criterion in (2)?

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is having strong links. For both your sake and mine, please explicitly link your value to the resolution's moral obligation, your criterion to both your and your opponent's values, and your contentions to both your and your opponent's criteria; even if the links are obvious, I can't consider those links unless you're the one making them.If you're planning your 1NR or 2AR, consider walking me through the RFD (by explaining how following that three-step link chain should lead to a ballot for you) and giving me multiple paths to the ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Finally, as a note for those who may not be as familiar with traditional-style frameworks: morality is not in and of itself a moral value, and concepts like equality, fairness, justice, freedom, or the like are values, not criteria. No one in an LD round should be disputing that morality is good, but which moral value ought we prioritize when multiple values conflict, as they almost inevitably will when debating the resolution? And the criterion can't be an abstract concept; that's what your value should be. Instead, the criterion is the yardstick I can use to measure who's meeting the value better. If the value debate is between an actual value and "morality," or if the criterion debate is between a measurable criterion and an abstract value, my decision on which framework to adopt for the round will be fairly easy.

PF

Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, I default to impact-weighing in PF. In such rounds, I analyze each contention independently, and I ask myself if either team still has offense on that contention by the end of the round. After examining every contention on my flow: if only one team has offense, that team wins; if both teams have offense, I weigh the impacts of that offense; and if neither team has offense, I shed a single tear and try my best to figure out who was closest to having any.

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is impact-weighing. For both your sake and mine, please don't assume your impacts are more powerful than your opponents'; tell me not only why you get to your impacts and your opponents don't get to theirs, but give me reasons to prefer your impacts over your opponents'. If you're planning your final focus, consider walking me through the RFD (by very clearly explaining why you have offense and why your offense outweighs theirs) and giving me multiple independent paths to my ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Additionally, a fairly common reason why teams lose in front of me is they don’t extend well enough. I have a high threshold for extensions. You must extend both your link chain and your impact; if you drop either your link chain or your impact, you will not be getting any offense from that contention, as in the best case scenario, either you make something happen but that something has no impact, or you win that something would have a big impact but you that thing won’t actually happen. If you want to win, be thorough on your extensions.

I am fine with frameworks, and I am influenced by my LD background when evaluating rounds with them. If one team runs a framework in their constructive, their opponents must run a counter-framework in the following speech, lest they risk conceding the framework debate. I do want to see you give me warrants for why I should prefer your framework over your opponents' (and to extend them), so I have a way to decide which framework to use. I will not use both. The framework is the lens through which I view the entire round and weigh its impacts. I am willing to vote for teams which lose or concede the framework debate so long as they have impacts which link into their opponents' framework. Therefore, in a round with a contested framework debate, I encourage you to do two sets of weighing: one if you win your framework and one if you lose it. I may weigh the same impact very differently given a different framework with which to weigh.

If neither team runs a framework, I take utilitarianism to be the implicit default. That means that, if your case focuses on some form of structural violence or oppression, I strongly encourage you to run a framework. Otherwise, because utilitarianism treats the utility of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk exactly the same as it does that of anyone who is marginalized or oppressed, I would need you to give me quantifiable impacts that I could weigh against your opponents'. I can't rely on what seems or is obvious; I need you to be the one to verbalize it and get all the way to the quantifiable impact, because otherwise I would be imposing truth over tech.

Critically, under this implicit framework, I'm much more concerned with individual-level impacts than societal-level impacts. What that means is that I won't vote on whether you'll boost GDP, avoid a recession, avert armed conflict, or close an income gap, unless you tell me what concrete effect that has on the real-life people who would be affected. What I care about is how many people you take out of poverty, how many people you prevent from becoming unhoused, how many lives you save, or how future generations would be impacted. I realize not every PF debater is familiar with philosophy, so feel free to ask if you have any questions about utilitarianism or what that means for how I weigh given the absence of a framework.

Finally, as a note on nukes: I'm very skeptical of nuclear armageddon impacts. I won't rule out any arguments before they're made, but if you do make this argument, I'll want you to tell me why your opponents' world leads to nuclear armageddon (and your world doesn't) when it has never happened thus far in the real world, despite plenty of opportunities. (Then again, your opponents also need to make this skepticism argument in the round if they want me to vote on it; otherwise, I'll begrudgingly have to weigh it on my own ballot, but I won't be very happy about it.)

Miscellaneous (all events)

Speed—I don't like speed, and I detest spreading. If you're wondering, "Is this too fast?," the answer is yes. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't flow it; if I can't flow it, I can't weigh it; and if I can't weigh it, I most certainly can't vote on it. You have been warned.

Time—I am strict on time. If my timer goes off or if I raise a closed fist near the end of a speech, that indicates time has expired; at this point, I will stop flowing, and I will not consider anything said in the overrun on my RFD. I time speeches and crossfires beginning with the first word (excluding roadmaps). Additionally, I will start prep immediately once your opponent's speech or crossfire has finished, unless you tell me you're forgoing prep. Telling me you'll "start prep in three, two, one" just wastes three seconds of your prep time, as I've already started timing.

Theory—It may not surprise you to learn, after having read the two prior paragraphs, that I think of myself as quite open to theory shells on the basis of the accessibility of the activity, particularly as such arguments relate to speed, spreading, or time abuse. That said, I’ve only ever actually judged one round that included theory, so I can’t give you much detail on how I evaluate theory arguments, save for the fact that I am willing to vote on it. I do know that statements like "this is PF" or "this is LD" are not theory shells and will win you precisely nothing on my ballot, so please give me a better reason than this. (After all, if you, I, or your opponent is not already aware that they are participating in a PF/LD round, there's likely a much bigger problem at hand.) As long as you can explain to me why something your opponent did makes debate less accessible to others in some way, I'm willing to consider it; I just may be a bit inconsistent with how I adjudicate theory until I've seen it a few times and know what I really feel about different sorts of theory arguments once I've seen them made. As a very important point, however: similar to my policy on frameworks, if your opponent introduces a theory shell, you must respond in your next speech — even if that speech is a PF second constructive — lest you risk dropping that theory shell.

Cross—I have no preference for whether you sit or stand during cross or speeches. If my timer goes off when you're still asking a question in cross, I will advise your opponent not to answer your question. If my timer goes off after you've finished asking a question or during your opponent's response, I will announce that your opponent may choose whether or not to answer the question.

Disclosure—I know this is generally the norm at most tournaments, but since it's less universal in South Dakota specifically, I'll add that I am perfectly fine verbally disclosing my decision and RFD after any round; just give me a few minutes to decide. Please also feel free to take any notes you might need during my disclosure or ask any questions you might have afterwards, as I may not be able to write a detailed RFD by the time the tournament ends and my access to Tabroom's online balloting and RFD system closes, as I'll be more focused on my own debaters.

Signposting—In addition to all the rest, I want to make a special note to implore you to please signpost clearly. If I don't realize where your argument fits on my flow, I may mistakenly think you dropped that argument. Even if I do figure what you're extending or responding to, the time it takes me to figure out where you are on the flow is time I'm distracted from what you're actually saying, which might mean I miss flowing something else that's important. All in all, always signpost.

Tech v. truth—I default to tech over truth, but I reserve the right to make exceptions — principally, if any debater's arguments defend, diminish, excuse, justify, support, or promote a current, historical, or hypothetical genocide or its perpetrators, or otherwise amplify its supporters' claims. If I ever have to invoke such an exception, neither you nor I are going to like it.

Personal attacks—I can't believe I have to say this, butI don't take kindly to claims that, because you're running a contention or framework meant to be helping a certain group of people, and your opponent hasn't responded by conceding the round, your opponent hates, doesn't care about, or is a bigot towards that group of people. I also don't appreciate assertions that, because they have not conceded the round, an opponent does not understand a system of oppression with which they have firsthand lived experience. As I see it, the purpose of such statements is less about paths to the ballot on my flow and more about flustering, frustrating, or angering your opponent into making poor decisions. Unfortunately for people who make these rhetorical choices, those choices also frustrate and anger me, and one of the decisions I have to make is whether I should tank your speaks as a result. Don't do it.

Names and pronouns—Please don't hesitate to let me know if I mispronounce your name or if there's another name you'd like to be called besides what's listed on Tabroom. I also default to using the singular they for all competitors unless told otherwise; I am happy to use any other pronouns instead or in addition if you'd like me to, but please also don't feel any pressure to disclose your pronouns if you'd prefer not to for any reason.

Basic respect—Let's just try to be decent people, folks.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins. I hope you enjoy your round, and best of luck!

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out, rock on ballers!

I look for solid arguments, but weigh heavily on common sense and speaking skills as well. If you leave a good contention unblocked, it will count against you. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently. I try to vote on the flow, but if it's a mess or I can't understand you, I can't do that.

Be polite. If it is a close round, you will make my decision easy by being disrespectful to your opponents. If the disrespectful behavior is egregious, I may vote you down regardless of your arguments. This activity is about civil discourse, not insults.

I am an undergraduate student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in communication studies and political science, with a minor in public policy analysis; this will be my third year judging high school debate. While I personally never debated in high school, I captained my varsity mock trial team for three of four years with championship success and have extensive experience with what constitutes a well-constructed and skillfully presented argument (my college major is literally in rhetoric). Basically, you’re not going to impress me with rapid-fire speaking and cramming citations down my throat; you’ll impress me with a solid and understandable argument.

You can reach me at ssaxon@huskers.unl.edu.

Overall Judging Style

If there are any aspects of the debate I will look to before all others (regardless of the event), they are presentation, framework, and impact. Ensure that you're speaking clearly and at a pace where even a layperson can understand your argument and individual points. Organize things clearly with a defined cause and effect. Fancy jargon and vocabulary are nice, but they're just embellishment. Ensure your bare-bones argument is solid and the rest will fall into place.

Speed will not win you any points with me — I sat through far too many speed-reading-from-notecards powerpoint presentations in my high school days. This is a public address activity; your arguments need to be both substantiated and understandable. I prefer a consistent, metered pace — it allows for a more involved, persuasive, and all-around comprehensive style of speaking and debate. As the presenter, it is your burden to ensure your speech is clear and understandable: the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must do so. That said, I am not unreasonable; if you need to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team presented, that is acceptable, it just shouldn’t be your default setting as a competitor.

Spreading is a pet-peeve of mine. Your job is to prove your argument as thoroughly as possible and parry your opponent's points, not to introduce as many superficial arguments as you can possibly spit out. Spreading is cheap, full stop.

Also, if you want the most accurate, well-rounded judging and the most extensive feedback possible from me, you’d better not be speaking at lightyear speed. Brains don’t work that way.

I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence and its source material are saying, and for the love of Sophocles, look up the pronunciation of formal nouns and places mentioned in your evidence. It’s trivial, but repeatedly mispronouncing words gives the impression you did not do your due diligence in research.

General Things

-I encourage and always allow self-timing, but am willing to keep time for the round if necessary

-Roadmaps are always off the clock for me

-I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, you’re doing it wrong

-I like to flow as much as possible, so I appreciate a debater with well-organized and clear signposts

LD Paradigm:

-I briefly debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for OG. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I dislike "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- please limit your jargon or buzzwords, especially if you don't know what they mean or how to use them.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar so please explain it well.

-be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

PF Paradigm:

-please don't run a circular framework debate the whole time, i.e. "my framework is a pre-q to theirs". Focus on the contentions and analysis :)

-I love voters and impacts in the final speech

-Speed is okay, but not "policy fast."

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

Experience: 4 years as a high school policy debater

Coaching: 2 years as a head coach (PF and LD), 1 year as an assistant coach

Judging: I’ve judged all forms of debate over the past 10 years with a focus on LD the past 5 years

I vote based on the debate presented and which arguments the debaters choose to close for, for example if you drop an important argument I will have to disregard it for my decision, when going for framework please make sure you also focus on the application of the framework on the contention level.

I am a college student and a coach, (past two years), I have been part of debate since 2014.

I don't like paraphrase/paragraphed cases, if you have one please make sure you can show the difference between the start of a card and the end of the other. I want a source as well for the cards.

I love direct clash with a passion. Don't just say you won, tell me why and how.

I will weigh things carried through round more then something dropped and then brought back in the FF.

If you have questions please ask me in the round.

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, and clarity of thought. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework or philosophy; your contentions count too!

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.

Affiliations

Debated for Watertown HS (SD) 2014-2018

TL:DR

If you want ill give time to read before round, just ask. Here is a quick rundown:

I debated PF all four years of high school with some success. I prefer warranted debates, extensions, and clash. Speed is okay, but I will say clear if I can't keep up.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

Former 4-year varsity debater and extemper at Watertown HS. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in PF in 2017 and I was a state quarterfinalist in 2017 and 2018 in PF. I also qualified for NSDA nationals in 2018 for IX and placed 3rd at state in 2018. I have also helped coach a couple of teams to a couple of state finals in PF and one state champion in DX. I now work in public policy full-time

Contact for any further clarification: vlasmanaaron@gmail.com

_______________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

Tech>Truth

Warrants>Empirics

Warrants are essential. Please explain the logic behind every card - reading the tag and highlight isn't enough.

Theory:

I would prefer you to stay away from theory in PF. I have sat in on a few theory debates but never debated or judged it myself. I'm pretty open to some T but I think in PF that argument can come somewhere naturally in the rebuttal and not in a theory shell. Please make it well warranted, don't just read T for offense.

Interp:

I'm okay with weird or more obscure interpretations just make them warranted. If a team is running an abusive interp then, by all means, call them out. Again, make a warranted argument as to why the interp is abusive or I will allow the interp. Please, do not confuse/blur interps with framework - they are very different.

Framework:

I will default CBA

Framework should clearly define what I am weighing in the round. If you are going to run a FW then it is crucial you extend it in every speech or I will drop it. Please, make your FW pertain to the narrative of your case or the overall weighing of the round. If there is competing FW I'll judge which to use based on debate. I don't want to use two frameworks but I will if need be. If your FW does not relate to the resolution, your narrative, or any aspect of the round then this is one place where I will not flow it. No throwaway FW. As always, warrants matter. I won't frame the round how you tell me to without warrants.

Case Debate:

I am fine with just about any type of case - as long as it is warranted. I once ran that lifting the Cuban embargo would lead Cuba to drill for oil off US shores which stops Venezuelan corruption on the AFF - so go nuts. Interesting and different arguments are encouraged as long as they are well warranted and defended.

Crossfire:

I'm seeing this less and less but please don't take time during cross to find a card - your time is much better spent questioning. I don't have any problems with folks being aggressive in cross but be mindful of all competitors and their experience in the round. Do not yell, I promise your argument does not get better based on volume. Do not speak over debaters. Do not be condescending or make ad hominem arguments in cross. Crossfire is binding.

In Round:

I enjoy and prefer clash. Debates without clash arent educational and become very boring very fast. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to turns or it is conceded. Extend every argument you are going for. If something is not extended it is dropped from the flow. Weighing is incredibly important - if you don't weigh then I will have to intervene and weigh myself. I prefer every speech other than the FF to be line by line.

Prep Time:

DO NOT STEAL PREP. I am okay with everyone keeping their own prep but I will also keep prep to cross-check. You are encouraged to call for cards before and after speeches. If you are the team calling for a card or the partner not looking for a card, just set your pen down and look up from your computer so there is no confusion about stealing prep. I will start prep once a team gets the card. I will stop prep once you are done with the card and continue/restart prep when need be.

Speaks:

I'm not that stingy with speaks unless you give me a reason to give out low speaks. Low speaks will be given out if you are abusive in round, commit an evidence violation, overly mean, etc. As long as you debate well do not worry ab speaks.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have any other questions about my paradigm on something not listed above please ask!

I will disclose after the round if you would like. If time permits, I will give a full RFD. If timing does not permit feel free to find me in the halls.

Best of luck!

Public Forum/LD

My paradigm is fairly simple for any form of debate. Ultimately, I am looking for substantive issues to be resolved at the end of the round.

I believe that arguments need to be explained in the process of presentation. Please do not assume that I will do the work for you. Explain why your evidence supports your claims and why your argument is better or more important than your opponent's arguments.

If you have a particular way you want me to view the round, please make sure that you explain so everyone in the round understands the expectation (and make sure you meet the expectation as well). If that particular lens is important to the round, you should also be framing the round in that way the entire time (not just in your first and last speech).

While I don't have any predisposition to style or speed or structure or any specific arguments necessarily, I do prefer respectful debate where both sides are working to resolve the issues.

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.

Experience: I competed in Public Forum for 6 years in North Dakota and am a past state champion in this event and a national qualification. Additionally, I competed on the National Circuit sparingly for 4 years. I competed in Extemp for 5 years in North Dakota/South Dakota and competed in International Extemp at the national tournament for 3 years. Lastly, I competed in Congress for 3 years but only at the local level (ND).

Judging PF: I'm looking for a good, clean round of debate. Be polite, act with class, and don't lose your cool. The team that extends the most impacts of their own and turns, delinks, disproves, or indicts the other teams will win the round 99 times out of 100 for me. I can keep up with nearly any speed but if you are going to talk fast please be experienced enough to enunciate. Truth is king, I don't believe tech should exist. Solvency won't win you the round. I strongly believe that solvency doesn't have a place in Public Forum because it is impossible to solve. If you can solve for poverty, war, climate change, etc. in a 45-minute round, I will personally fly you to the UN and you can go solve it. Extend the impacts, use logic and sources to disprove, persuade me. OFF THE CLOCK ROAD MAPS DONT EXIST. IF YOU START TALKING I START THE TIMER. I don't flow crossfire so if you want to garner offense from it, bring it up in a speech.

Judging LD: I have much less experience in LD however I still know what the basis of the event is. I am still looking for a clean round here too. Solvency doesn't exist in this event either. There's a reason a policy round is 90 minutes long. You cannot solve a moral/ethical issue with real-world implications in your 6-minute speech in a 45-minute debate round. Impacting is still king here. Sources are not as important but the clearer you pull them through the flow the more offense you have the opportunity to gain. I NEED a Value/Criterion Clash. Whoever wins this usually wins my ballot but can be swayed if both sides concede to the same V/C or if one side better upholds both V/C without a clear winner on the clash itself.

Judging Speech: If you're in a more rigid event, i.e. either extemp, inform, oratory, etc. keeping it light or incorporating comedic relief is great. Keeps the judge happy and engaged. Other events I take at face value.

Good luck.

I am a parent judge and enjoy the process of judging PF rounds. As a lay judge I'm focused on which team is making a more compelling argument using reason, logic and facts.

Speed is usually not an issue, but please speak clearly during your round.

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.

LD

I am in my third season of judging LD, so I am still learning. I will admit that I am leaning on my Public Forum experience to a degree during the learning process. I have so far developed two rules about judging LD:

1.) Defend your value statement, especially if your opponent attacks it. If your opponent is able to negate your value statement, your case goes away and it becomes extremely difficult to win at that point.

2.) If you and your opponent agree upon or merge your value statements and your criterion, then to me it becomes a PF round.

PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC.

Introduction

The best thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it, and the worst thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it. If you don't read this before a round, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS OF ONLINE DEBATE, don't complain to your coach about what is said on my ballot after you lose.

How I vote/Framework

You can present your framework if you want, but I really don't pay any attention to it, especially with resolutions that are Yes/No. I am more interested in hearing the contents of your case, and I don't start flowing until I hear you say "Contention 1". I vote based on the cases, their contents, the attacks made on the cases and the responses to those attacks. Whoever has the majority of their case left standing at the end of the round wins. I value evidence over opinion, but not exclusively so. If you are presenting a morality-based case, you do so at your peril. It is my opinion that morality arguments are best done in LD. If you present a morality-based case AND you tell me I'm immoral if I vote you down, you are officially done at that point (it's happened, that's why it's included).

Argumentation
First and foremost, I expect professional conduct during the entirety of the round. While I haven’t yet decided a round based on arrogance, rudeness or condescension, I also have no qualms awarding a low-point win if the tournament rules allow.

Case speakers – I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of what has to be proven by whom during a debate round, especially toward the end of a topic period. Therefore, I don’t want to hear the Webster definition of 3 or 4 of the words in the resolution unless your definition differs from your opponent's. You may present framework if you want, but refer to the above as to how I treat it. As stated above in "How I vote", I very rarely start flowing until I hear "Our first contention is...…"

Rebuttal speakers – I value your responses to your opponent’s case more than I do getting back to your own, especially if all you’re doing is re-reading it. In addition, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE OR ARE SUPPLEMENTING YOUR OWN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING. If you don't, it doesn't get flowed, and what doesn't get flowed doesn't get judged. I also like rebuttal speakers who are skilled enough to be able to attack their opponent’s rebuttal if you are speaking second. Finally, be very careful if you're attacking your opponent's case with points from your own. If your attack point gets damaged or negated, the opponents points you attacked will more than likely pull through intact.

Crossfire – It is very difficult to win a round during crossfire, but it is very easy to lose a round during crossfire. I’ll let you interpret that however you want. I consider CX to be for my benefit, not yours. I'm not real crazy about interruptions or talking over one another. Let your opponent finish an answer before you ask a follow-up question. I do reserve the right (and I have done it) to cut off a CX round if all you're doing is continuing the debate rather than doing Q&A. My rule at the buzzer - an answer may finish, a question may not.

Summary - The third minute of summary that was added last year has been interesting in how teams have approached it. I will say this: If you are speaking first, you can go back and attack your opponent's rebuttal, but don't spend more than 90-seconds on it. If you spend the entire time in attack, I'm going to assume you think you're losing. You should be introducing voters and giving me your introductory analysis of how the round is going.

Final Focus – You should be telling me why you won the round. I do not object if you figuratively take me by the hand and walk me through your analysis of how the round went. If you spend more than half your time continuing to attack your opponent's case, I will again assume that you're not confident about the success of your own.

Delivery
As far as speed goes, this is not policy. While I do flow with a spreadsheet on a laptop, there are even speeds that I can’t follow. If you see me put my hands behind my head, you are talking too fast, and what does not get flowed does not get judged. Please slow down a notch when presenting main points and sub points.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC - If you are going to run Climate Change on the Pro, or Remittances on the Con, you had better be able to connect it back to the resolution. If you don't, and your opponent argues that either of these points are non-resolutional, I will agree with them.

Questions? Feel free to send an email to either wilsonbl@sio.midco.net or blaine@ucctcm.org

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.

Experience

One year of policy, three years of public forum as a debater. This will be my eighth year as a judge, mainly for public forum.

Definitions/Framework

Don't take too long here outside of your case, unless the resolution deems it necessary. For a straightforward resolution, a framework will not have a significant impact on how I judge a round. I'll listen, but it is very rare that the framework will win you the round by itself. Same with definitions. Unless the resolution is vague and definitions are required, they won't have much effect on the round.

Argumentation

Case Speakers - Not much to say about a pre-written speech except to use all of your time and read through your speech enough times that my round doesn't sound like the first time you are seeing the case.

Rebuttal - First, don't restate your case. Your partner just read it, I don't need to hear it again. Second, make sure to signpost. I can usually follow where your arguments should go, but the more I'm focusing on where to flow your point, the less I'm focusing on the actual point.

Crossfire - Similar to the framework, a round usually isn't won or lost in crossfire. I typically use this time to take a break from flowing and begin to process the various points that have been made in the round. Questions posed by debaters can help clarify points, but don't often turn things around too much. However, if you do discover something big that could change the course of the round, make sure to follow it up in your next speeches. As I rarely flow crossfire, a significant point could be lost if not expanded upon later. Be polite to one another, don't interrupt your opponents and try to ask more in depth questions than "What was your first point?".

Summary/Final Focus - Start to condense the round into the main points that you think will be the most important. I will flow either way, but if one team starts to focus on the main voters while the other just gives a second rebuttal speech, weighing the round can be a little difficult. Be specific in your main voters. Tell me which points are important, why they are more important than your opponents, and how much weight I should give them.

Delivery

Speed - With my one year of policy and relatively young ears, speed isn't too much of an issue. I can still flow just about anything, but I do recommend that you slow down a hair when reading your points and subpoints. My shorthand does get shorter the faster you go, so the likelihood that I can't read my flow or miss a key factor of your point goes up as speed increases. Similarly, don't attempt speed just to throw more arguments at the wall to see what sticks. I prefer good points versus a deluge that allows you to say "my opponent didn't respond to ___" at the end of the round.

Additional Notes

Public Forum is not Policy. - I don't want to hear K's or DA's, and depending on the resolution, teams need to be very careful that the case they are presenting does not fall into the realm of plan/counterplan. The only holdover I will take from policy is topicality. If a case very blatantly does not comply with the resolution, I will hear the argument and weigh it accordingly. However, be warned. If it is not obviously outside of the confines of the resolution and you are trying to pull one over on me for a quick win, it implies that you do not have enough legitimate arguments to defeat their case.

Be Professional - This just kind of applies in general. I have yet to personally decide a round based on a debater's attitude or how they treated their opponents, and as long as both sides exude proper decorum, I hope I won't have to.

Timer - For a speech, when the timer goes off, I will listen to the end of a sentence, but will stop listening and will not flow whatever comes next. During crossfire, if the timer goes off during a question, I will allow the opponent to answer the question, but there will be no follow-up and crossfire is over as soon as the answer has concluded.

Roadmaps - I'm fine with roadmaps if they are necessary. But if your roadmap is "I'm going to go down our flow and then down my opponent's flow', no need to make a big deal out of it.

Questions

Feel free to email me at wilsontj@sio.midco.net before or after the round if you have any questions.