If you have any questions, you can contact me at tannercronce@gmail.com. This is also how you add me to the email chain. Let me know when you do it.

Please don't try to judge-adjust too much... this should serve more as a guideline to introduce yourself to me.

What am I good for?:

Good For:

--K Affs

--K on the negs

--DA-case debates

--Politics/elections debates

--T (If you feel you can argue this competently, do it, but most people don't)

--Anything, honestly... I am not a fan of conditionality for negs, though, unless it's just for one item.

--I will vote on disclosure theory

More In-Depth Background (Before Round Version After):

SQUO: I'm not going to pretend like I don't know anything about the status quo, so don't act or pretend like something is happening that isn't or vice versa. (e.g., If an opponent has a slightly dated card about a poll and you cross-ex and say, "Well, aren't these cards outdated?" and try to imply like there's been any radical difference between then and now in terms of poll numbers, I'm not going to care for that unless you have something crazy or radical to back it up that would be substantial to the debate. Don't cross-ex dumb questions.)

TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

SPEED: Go as fast as you want but Read LOUD and CLEAR. If you are mumbling through your evidence, I will not hear you...

I have an auditory disability that makes it hard to hear soft sounds. Clear and loud is the best way for me to comprehend evidence, but again, you don't have to be slow.

Things of note before your round starts:

If you are trying to be mean simply for the purpose of being mean because you want to overwhelm the other team and make them look bad, I will see right through it.

Flashing:

Add me to the email chain

Road-Mapping is cool

Voting:

I vote off the flow (tabs judge) so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments, so keep that in mind. If you try to confuse the other team instead of debating the specifics of your policy, I will vote down your team more than likely.

SPEAKER POINTS FOR ALL:

Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could get speaker points docked...

1.) Being an a-hole in your speeches towards someone or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner, I will have more leniency when it comes to those who may be discriminated against for being “too aggressive”, so don’t worry (I’m talking more about people who usually identify as women who have this issue)
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("Judge, you have to vote for this judge" over and over). I understand it's a habit for some, but avoid it if possible.
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "How's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me... for the love of God, do not do this. I debated for years, and you don't need to pretend you like me or the other team. Be mean to me if you want, I do not care, just don’t pretend like I’m any different than you in the round.
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) Not Road Mapping In-Round (Just say onto ___) Trying to trick the other team by not listing your advantages by name only hurts my flow for you. Just do it.
7.) DO NOT walk around the room during your speech or someone else's speech unless it's to grab evidence. I will heavily dock you.
8.) I will not dock you for speaking for your partner in the middle of their speech if you need to include something... I will listen to you. Your partner doesn't need to repeat it. Just know that I will take that into consideration if you're doing massive chunks of a speech and the negs run an education T argument.

IN-ROUND STUFF

K Affs

I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I only debated policy in high school. Explaining your advocacy is a must, and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise, it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.

Okay with identity args, high-theory, soft-left, just explain how the advocacy functions and solves

Make sure you are not name-dropping and assuming everyone knows who or what you are talking about.

Just make sure if you run a K Aff, tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.

Ks

Links: I'm not as persuaded by links of omission or links to the status quo unless you can explain how the aff furthers the harms you've isolated. Specific links are the best, but I'm persuaded by both links to the plan text and links to the advantages/impacts/representations of the aff.

Impacts: I'll evaluate the pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts of the k. Framing is important to tell me what kinds of impacts I should evaluate and whether theory should come first.

Alts/litbase: I probably don't know your theories or your authors, so be sure to explain how the alt functions and try to minimize jargon and name-dropping at every level of the flow. I'll vote on all kinds of alts as long as you explain how they function and win solvency of something (not necessarily the case, depending on the round and how impacts are weighed.)

Perm: I won't vote on a perm that wasn't clearly articulated in the 2AC. You need to explain how it functions so that I can evaluate it weighed against the alt as a stand-alone.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at tannercronce@gmail.com. This is also how you add me to the email chain. Tell me when you do it.

Cross-Ex

I don’t flow cross-ex unless it’s clarifying for me, which means that you need to point out anything you find out during cross-ex during your speech.

No statements during cross-x questioning. Period. I will not flow statements and will disregard a response to the statement unless I feel it clarifies those who are being cx'd, not the ones making the statement. I also will not flow anything that has nothing to do with their evidence or anything I feel does not connect to the debate itself.

Inform me clearly when you are done with your time, aka when your 1AC is over, when cross-x is over, when your prep is done, etc.

If you feel that the author has specific biases, point them out and explain. I want to know that you know authors and how to identify credible sources. Okay with Open Cross ex as long as you don't dominate your partner's cross-ex

Disadvantages

I'll enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides is a must to win in these debates. I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on the specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

Topicality

Just make sure if you run a K Aff, tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.

Topicality is a great position and one of the most important for me and unfortunately, hardly anyone goes for it. It has to be run well, though… I get a lot of people who will go for T but do not actually have a fleshed-out reason for me to vote for T. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of God, don't read reverse voters on T.

Framework

Framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

Counterplans

Competition is important, and if a CP isn't competitive, a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP, in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me.

I'm not likely to vote on a CP unless it is actually argued well. I won’t if it’s abusive. I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR. I will vote for it if it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off blocks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

*Updated 1 January 2021

Tldr:

Run whatever as long as it’s not racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/death good. I evaluate the round how you tell me to evaluate it

About me

Novice Coach at SPASH in Wisconsin

SPASH '20, Minnesota '24

My senior year I was double twos but I was 1a/2n for most of my high school career.

Tbh I think the only ethical paradigm is tabs and that it props up a very violent system when judges have the ability to vote a team down/dock speaks because of the meaningless rift between “K” and “Policy” debaters. In general, I will evaluate your arguments and decide the round how YOU tell me to… I don’t really have a “default” paradigm because I think that it would be really unethical to vote down a K just because I default to policymaker framing when neither team made framework analysis, or to reject a DA vs. a Kaff just because I default to pedagogy and nobody told me otherwise.

The information in this paradigm should serve only as a GUIDELINE. Please don't try to judge-adjust too much.

Just for the record I tended to read kritikal arguments on both the aff and neg, but I don’t think that makes me strictly a “K judge.” Either way, I’ve run and won with policy affs throughout my debate career, and I’ve been known to go for DAs/CPs/Topicality in the 2NR.

In terms of facial expressions, I think it's generally important for debaters to be able to see the judge during a round, which is why I try to keep my camera on during speeches and cross-ex at least. That said, I don't tend to be very expressive until the RFD, so don't interpret my lack of reaction as a lack of attention.

Topic knowledge

I like to think I have some basic knowledge... I've been coaching the novice packet affs since September and judging since October, but it's still probably best to assume I don't know acronyms right off the bat.

In-round stuff

I don’t tolerate rudeness/disrespect to your opponents, your partner, or myself. I’ll let you know right away if you’re being rude or disrespectful, and if the behavior is egregious enough or continues after I warn you your speaks will suffer.

If you need to stop or pause the round for any reason, please let me know. Debate should be a safe space for everyone and I understand that there is often quite a bit of pressure to put up with absolutely unacceptable behavior on the part of opponents/coaches/judges/tournament officials, especially for those of us who are already marginalized within the space. You are not obligated to endure hate or disrespect. You are not obligated to be silent while your opponent speaks over you in cross-ex. You are not obligated to read what you are told to read if you know that it is wrong. The only way that we can improve the systemic issues which we all know are present within debate is by confronting them head-on. Ultimately, this is y'all's space. The line between "in-round abuse" as a reason to reject the team and give the other the ballot and in-round violence as a reason to stop the round immediately and DQ one team can be very thin, which is why I'm inclined to listen to the debaters. If you tell me in your speech that something is a violation of debate rules/norms and a reason to vote, I'll evaluate it as a debate argument. If you express to me in or outside of a speech or cross-ex that you don't feel the round can continue, I'll honor that. Because of this, I think that some rounds require a more participatory group discussion in lieu of or following the RFD-- feel free to let me and your opponents know if you'd like to dissect the round as a group and/or have a conversation about something specific that happened.

Yes, put me on the email chain! (graf.daphne@gmail.com)

Please time your own speeches and prep—I’ll record how much prep YOU tell me you’ve taken and remind you of how much you have left, but in general I trust you to have integrity and behave like an adult. Feel free to time your opponents’ speeches as well.

I DO NOT count flashing/emailing time as prep… however, it the time it takes to put together the flashing document/save to the flashdrive/attach to the email chain becomes excessive or involves a lot of typing (as if you were… maybe… writing your speech?), this could be subject to change.

(Not really relevant at the moment but) Paper teams: I expect you to hand any evidence you read to your opponents as you read it. If your evidence is stapled and for some reason you can’t unstaple it, or if you accidentally put your cards on the wrong side of your stand (it’s been known to happen) arrangements will be made to provide the other team with some reading time (depending on the amount of evidence) before cross-ex/prep begins. If one team is paperless and the other team does not have any kind of computer to view speechdocs, a viewer laptop must be provided.

Speed

On the body of cards, go as fast as you want, but PLEASE read tags and analytics a little bit more slowly than you read cards. Clarity is key! I’ll tell you “clear” twice if I genuinely can’t understand you before I stop flowing. If you’re going to spread your blocks as if they’re cards please at least include them in your speech docs.

T/THEORY/FRAMEWORK IS NOT THE PLACE TO BE SPREADING AT TOP SPEED! My ADHD brain is not physically able to process your wall of analytics, and I’ll be a lot more sympathetic to the other team if you end up going for subpoint d of your 7th 10-second theory block from the 2AC. Again, if you send it out on the email chain, we can flow it, but otherwise I don’t think I can ethically vote on something I didn’t catch.

Topicality

I love a good T debate! I think I’m very tech-over truth on topicality arguments… that said, I think that if you genuinely meet the other team’s interpretation and you want to take the risk the 2AR can go for “we meet.”

You definitely need to impact out your violation…. Why does it matter that you don’t have ground against this aff? If YOU IN THIS SPECIFIC DEBATE do have ground, what precedent is the affirmative team setting? Please actually give WARRANTS and EXAMPLES.

Impact calc on the T flow can actually be really helpful for both teams… how do I weigh Aff Choice Vs. Education? Reasonability vs. Fairness?

TVA: I think that in the case of straight topicality a case list might be a better way to go but it’s up to you if you want to go for the TVA instead. I think that on this topic, there are several T violations that are very strategic against K-affs, in which case you should DEFINTIELY be reading me a TVA.

Framework

Say it with me, folks: FRAMEWORK! IS! NOT! T!

Too often, teams run a “T USFG” violation and try to act like it’s framework. If you’re going to make the argument that affirmative teams must defend FIATED government action, then there should probably be a definition of “should” in your 1NC or some other indication of how FIAT is intrinsic to the resolution. Your violation should be supported by definitions.

The best way to win a framework debate in front of me (whether you’re aff or neg) is by CLASHING WITH THE OTHER TEAM’S ARGUMENTS. If they read me a specific indict of your definition or a DA to your interpretation and all you do in response is read a six-minute overview, I’m not going to be super persuaded. Obviously teams that read kritikal affirmatives are usually very prepared to hit framework, and teams that read framework probably had to dig it up from some decades-old backfile, but you need to do more than just read me your blocks.

TVA: I think that if the negatives prove that their interpretation is good, a TVA can be fatal for the affirmative case. That said, I don’t think that the TVA is a voter if you’re not winning the violation or interpretation.

Theory

Go for it! If your theory violation is explained well/debated well/impacted out/not violent and you legitimately beat the other team in the theory debate then I’ll vote on even the whack stuff regardless of my personal feelings on whether or not something should be allowed in debate.

See “speed” for more advice on how to run theory in front of me.

Aff advantages/Solvency

This might be revolutionary but I don’t think that “They didn’t contest the internal link chain so give us full weight of a nuclear war vote aff automatically” is an extension of your case. PLEASE give a quick overview of your actual advantage scenario… it doesn’t have to be long, but if it’s being weighed against a DA/CP/K that’s explained well I’ll have a really hard time voting aff.

We stan a solvency takeout... but we also stan an impact turn. I think that if the off case/on case arguments prove that the aff is either a) a bad idea or b) no real change from the status quo I'll have a really hard team voting aff.

K affs

Here it is, the moment you’ve all been waiting for—yes, please run your k aff in front of me! I don’t think you *need* to have in-round solvency, but if you do, tell me about it! I don’t think your overview on case *has* to be super long but I’m also not against long overviews… if you want to offer a role of the ballot specific to your aff, that’s fine. If the role of the ballot is just “vote for the best idea,” that’s fine too. If your aff does not defend a reduction in foreign military sales and/or direct commercial sales of arms from the United States, then you should explain why your lack of topicality is necessary—feel free to be creative with your explanations.

Definitely see the Ks section for more info on debating your advocacy/ROB/impacts

DAs

I mean… it’s a DA. I’ll be really annoyed if I have to vote on a nonsensical link but I do vote on the flow so… if you’re negative, read a good link card and if you’re affirmative and their link card is bad, PLEASE attack it. I’m fine w/ new link scenarios in the 2NC to an extent… I think there’s an unfair burden on the 1AR if you’re basically running a new DA, but if you win the theory debate I won’t intervene.

I’m not super persuaded by 6 different marginally different DAs with the same nuclear war impact in the same 1NC… I’ll be much more sympathetic in that case to the aff cross-applying answers.

CPs

Fairly self-explanatory… I don’t think that CPS nEED to be topical or nEEd to be non-topical either way. I think that the goal of the counterplan is probably to solve the impacts of the aff, but if the net benefit is strong enough and the only aff argument on the CP flow is a solvency deficit, I could vote for the CP anyway.

I think the CP flow is where the most theory pops out so please, feel free to go off!

Ks

I don’t think you need to read a super-long overview at the top but you can if you want… I also *HATE* that I have to say this but the 1nr/2nc does NOT have to follow the order of the 2AC. The 2AC should try to follow the order of the 1NC but with perms and maybe framing at the top. Please rest assured that I AM FLOWING YOU. Whether you’re reading psychoanalysis/nationalism/colonialism/queerness lit (in which I am very well-versed) or something that I’ve never heard of before, I’ll listen to your speeches and use what you tell me to make my decision. I know that a lot of debaters are voted down too often because the judge either thinks that they understand the theory of power and doesn’t flow OR the judge is convinced that they are incapable of understanding the theory of power and refuses to flow it.

On the link level, I think that your link should be to the 1AC or Cross-ex in some way… but what part of the 1AC/cross ex (plantext, advantages, framing, fiat, problematic language, etc) is up to you. I don’t tend to buy arguments from the affirmative that “this is how debate has always been so we should keep debating the same way” just because that’s not… a warrant.

I think that negative framing can be new in the 2 because you’re really answering the 2AC framing argument. If the 1AC didn’t explicitly say “We get to weigh our impacts bc fiat good” I don’t think the 1NC should be forced into spending time on trying to guess how the aff wants to frame the round. That said, I give the 1AR a little bit of leeway for tagline framing arguments.

Go for whatever impact you want… pre-fiat, post fiat, whatever. I’d like to see either framing or some kind of calculus with the aff’s impacts, although, as always, this depends on the specific round.

As far as the alt goes… I’m cool with refusal alts if you explain what I’m refusing and why. I’m also cool with fiated/hypothetical alts like “embrace the communist party” or whatever. For the aff, I’m much more persuaded by arguments about how the negatives’ arguments are wrong than I am by backfiles cards indicting the theory of power as it was 20 years ago.

I have do not prefer a particular kind of argument over any others. Stylistically, however, I prefer quality over quantity; if you are spreading, ensure that your delivery is comprehensible. Sign-posting and clash are also appreciated.

Above all else, please respect your opponents. I'm looking forward to judging your debate!

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

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

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

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

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

Argument stuff:

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

Stylistic items:

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

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

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a pretty frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind.
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/K Affs-I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

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

What does this mean for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Experience:

Four years of high school policy debate at Rufus King High School.

I was a K debater.

Paradigm:

Tabs Judge

Preferences:

Email Chain - Please add me : winegarden9897@gmail.com

Speed - I am okay with speed, but be clear. If I can't understand you, it won't be flowed.

Clash - Every round must hav clash otherwise it would not be much of a round.

Cross Ex - Open cross ex is fine, however if one partner takes initiative when it is your cross ex, you will be penalized. Cross ex is an undervalued tool and strategy that not too many teams take advantage of.

K - I love K's, absolutely run them if you feel comfortable running them. If you don't feel comfortable running them, don't think you have to. I'll vote on any K if you prove that the K is better than the Aff.

DA - Love/hate relationship with them. I hate nuclear war DA's, I find them redundant and unrealistic. This isn't saying I won't vote on it, obviously if it beats out the Aff it will get voted on. DA's with realistic impacts is a much better alternative to Nuke War.

T - Using as a time waster is a valid strategy, however it won't get you very far. If you run T, I prefer you run it in depth and actually go for it. If you actually spent time on creating T files it'll show.

CP - Should be mutually exclusive with the Aff, otherwise, it'll be a boring round.

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

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

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

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

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

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

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

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

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

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

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

Arguments

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

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

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

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

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

Other Notes

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

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