My debate background is in Parliamentary Debate in a program strongly influenced by policy debate. What I look for is clear structure and sound arguments, avoiding fallacies, and using credible evidence to support claims.

In round, being able to compare and evaluate evidence and to impact arguments to the round. Tell me why your argument matters.

Another key element of a good debate is CLASH. Attack and defend your arguments, impact them to the criteria and value, tell me which one should be weighted the most in my evaluation of the round and why.

Be nice and have fun!

PF Debate Judge Paradigm

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Enter names of schools you coach for, judge for, etc.

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? Enter type of debate (LD, PF, Policy) and number of years. Otherwise, put N/A.

How often do you judge public forum debate? Can say every weekend, few times a year, etc.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? no

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Arguments, but it is meant to be a lay style of delivery

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? Give me voters

3. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? If you think it is your winning argument, extend it and also make it a voter.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Evidence is to support arguments,

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

If you make a claim, link it to the res/argument made, and warrant why it applies. Support your claims with reasoning and evidence. The stronger it is, the more I can weigh it.

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

Hutchison, Casey

About Me:

I debated PF for four years at Middleton and coached/judged PF and Policy in the Madison area for five years after that. I dropped out of the debate community for a while after moving to DC and Minneapolis, but I'm back in Madison now and excited to be coaching and judging again. I work as a policy analyst for the federal government (HUD).

Speed:

I can flow fast arguments (not to spreading level though) if you speak clearly. I'd prefer you err on the side of fewer arguments but easier to understand. Please slow down on tags and citations. I don't typically give cues if you're speaking too fast, especially in virtual debates.

Evaluating the Round:

I prefer arguments over style, but style does matter in terms of speaker points - see that section below. In Final Focus, please clarify the most important arguments, how you won them, and why they matter. Give me a way to weigh your arguments against your opponent's. If you plan to go for an argument in Final Focus, please don't drop it in rebuttal and summary.

At the end of the debate, I look at my flow and circle the arguments that each team won. Then I use the weighing mechanisms each team gave me in their last speeches to decide which are the most important, have the biggest impacts, etc. I typically weigh evidence more highly than analytics, but both are important - 2-3 good, well-warranted pieces of ev with a clear logical thread wins over a 10-card dump any day. Please explain things really clearly to me - Why does your argument outweigh? Why is it important that your opponent dropped something? What does the card that you're extending prove?

Speaker Points/Ranks:

Speaking skills, politeness, structure, persuasiveness, etc. are very important to me. Please DO NOT be rude or aggressive toward your opponents. It should go without saying, but do not lie to me by saying something was dropped when it wasn't or by using false or manipulated evidence. It also bothers me when speakers go over their allotted time by more than ~5 seconds, and I reflect repeated over-time speeches against your speaker points.

Other Notes:

Don't just read cards at me - explain why they matter.

I love when teams compare the pro and con worlds.

I coached policy for a while, so I'm willing to dip toes into weird arguments. Just make sure you explain everything clearly and ensure you actually clash and engage with your opponent's case.

Signpost everything! If you didn't tell me where to write something on my flow, I'm searching for the right spot rather than listening to what you're saying.

I'm always happy to answer questions, talk after rounds, even go through the whole flow if you want! What's most important to me is that everyone enjoys themselves and learns something.

BACKGROUND

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

PARADIGM

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

ARGUMENT

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

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

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

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

Extend defense in summary

EVIDENCE

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

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

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

CROSSFIRE

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

I have been a high school debater in the past, back in the days when we pushed around dollies of totes packed with paper evidence. While I have experience with debate I have only been back into judging for the past 2 or 3 years. At this point I feel comfortable with all the changes.

My background as a debater is in Policy debate. My teammates and I thought that tabula rasa was the coolest paradigm, so that's probably still influencing my decisions to this day. It's pretty much, I have no predispositions so you tell me how to vote.

I try to flow every argument and evidence card as thoroughly as I can but I need your help. Please speak clearly and keep your arguments in a coherent order. I can handle speed if you have a lot to cover in your speech. However, weigh that with the fact that if it was too fast for me to follow you will need to clarify your arguments as soon as possible. If you wait too long to make your arguments clear to me then it will be too late for me to fairly weigh them against others in the round.

"Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?" Sage advice I nabbed from another judge.

In crossfire I like to see that you are paying attention. Ask lots of questions and don't leave room for awkward pauses.

Hey everyone,

Here's a little background: I debated PF all four years of high school. Currently, I'm a junior in college, with a little over a year of experience judging. My judging is pretty straightforward, although I do have a few basic preferences:

• Speak coherently and articulate your arguments; I only flow what I can understand (quality>quantity)
• I will not flow dropped arguments or anything mentioned in cross, so be sure to flow through your arguments in the round and bring up anything you want to be considered from cross in subsequent speeches.
• Evidence is key. If your claims are not supported clearly, I will not flow it.
• Link your impacts. Ultimately, this is what the round will come down to, so make sure you clearly articulate voters and weigh these. Whenever possible, I want to see clash! Tell me how and why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

Hello debaters!

I am an ex-debater myself and I had competed in PF for 3 years. I have a good handle on all the debate jargon and lingo. While I did used to debate, that is no excuse to not remember what Public Forum is about, the Public! Treat me like an average joe who has no prior knowledge of the debate at hand! Lucky for you, I will be able to pick up on the use of debate terminology, but do not use that as an excuse to spread or get lazy. While a seasoned debater may have an ear for fast talking and spreading most people do not. How can I understand your points if you go through them faster than a normal person can write? Simply put, DO NOT SPREAD. Spreading does not belong in PF. If I can not keep up with your cards and contentions, I will not flow them. Furthermore, please speak clearly, make where you are in your speech obvious, signpost!! Make sure to carry evidence through every speech and not to drop contentions, cards or blocks. In Summary, use your time to condense the round to the major contentions that flow through and building off of that. In Final Focus, talk about voters! How is someone supposed to make a decision on a topic with out being told what the effect of the vote will cause! I will try my best to keep time of the rounds but I also expect each team to keep their own times respectively. I will give about 5 seconds after the timer runs out, if you continue to speak after the 5 second grace period, I will not flow what is said. I do listen to Cross Fire but I will not flow Cross Fire.

If you have questions please ask before the round starts.

Good luck and happy debating.

-4 years experience in Public forum and LD.

-Currently compete for the University of Nevada, Reno doing British parliamentary Debate and NPDA.

-Give voters and weigh your impacts.

-If you won the debate, chances are you will have won on my ballot.

I believe debate is great activity. I debated policy debate in high school for four years at the national level.

Here's a few things about how I think about the debate.

1. I don't flow cross examination but I flow the rest of the debate. I will bring statements from cross x and grand cross if you ask me to in the speeches. (I do listen to it.)

2. I may ask for evidence after the round.

3. I am open to any approach (speed, kritiques, etc.) as long as you can define it.

4. A dropped argument is a won argument. I then evaluate it against the rest of the arguments.

5. The resolution needs to fairly divide ground between the aff/neg or Pro/Con). Other than that, I am open to any other theory.

6. You should enjoy the activity!

Background: In high school, I debated in PF for one year and Lincoln Douglas for two. I competed primarily on the traditional local Minnesota circuit and continue to coach/judge through the Minnesota Debate Institute. My degree is also in International Relations so fair warning about literature! Let me know if you have specific theoretical questions about the round; I'm happy to explain my rationale and recommend literature, especially for framework.

Paradigm: I prefer a solidly framed traditional debate, but am familiar enough with progressive debate and am okay with spreading provided file sharing with your opponent is done beforehand, however I am suspicious of tenuous link chains/impact claims and will buy analytical indicts on them - you don't need to worry about jargon, if something just doesn't make any sense, that's an argument I'll flow! Accessibility and equity are priorities to me in the round, but aside from that anything goes. I will vote down for blatant disrespect if it occurs - I hope it never comes to that, but that includes harsh personal comments in cross or speeches especially if they may be perceived in any context to be racist, trans/homophobic, or misogynistic. Please do not hesitate to ask about this in-round or approach me privately if necessary. Otherwise, I encourage you to be as thorough as possible as you set up the values and truths for the round - don't take normative args or assumptions for granted and weigh explicitly so YOU tell me what is most important, or I have to insert myself and make my own assessment! It's much better for you to be in control of the round.

Please do not use gendered language when referring to your opponent and be as respectful as possible especially during cross ex! I don't flow or vote on cross, but if your opponent contests a piece of evidence or a specific warrant in cross and you are unable to give them information they asked for I won't flow it later out of fairness. Also, I am very wary of trying to make the cards or the case do the work YOU should be doing as a debater. You need to be able to explain your warrants and evidence throughout the round, not just read it off Verbatim. Offense must be impacted to a framework and weighed - this is how you show me you know how to use it in the round, this isn't a speed reading competition.

Background: Parli coach at WWU for one year. Competed in parli at Whitman for three years and one year independently (sco Sweets!). I have no idea if I am or if people perceive me as a K- or policy-oriented judge. I guess I read a lot of disads, topical K affs, disads, and always read, but never went for politics, but I strongly preferred being a double member because I gave no shits about what our strategy was and would defend whatever. So I have no strong preferences regarding argumentative content. 

I’ve tried writing a philosophy four or five times this year, and every attempt has ended with one sentence rejecting the proposition of writing in a philosophy in the first place. The short version, and what you probably want to know, is that you can read whatever you want, and should give me a reason why you win and a reason why the other team loses. In the event that the reason you win is also the reason they lose, you should explain how it is so. What follows is not a syncretic philosophy but a disorganized and unenclosed series of thoughts on debate, some arbitrary biases and thresholds, and judging tendencies I’ve noticed in myself. It may or may not be helpful.

Judging Generally

I find I feel much less certain about my decisions as a judge than I did about my predictions as a competitor and observer. Actually doing the work of making and justifying a decision almost always necessitates getting my hands dirty in some form or other. Most of my decisions require intervention to vote for any one team, either because certain core questions have not been resolved, or some resolved questions have not been contextualized to one another, or some combination of the two. Recognizing the frequent inevitability of dirty hands in decision-making, I try to stick to both a general principle and practice when judging. In principle, I try to have a justification for every decision I make. In practice, I find I try to limit my intervention to extrapolating from arguments made to resolve unanswered issues; if a certain team is winning a certain part of the flow; what does that mean for this part where no one is clearly ahead but where someone must be to decide the round? This is also means that an easy way to get ahead is doing that work for me--provide the summary and application of an argument in addition to making it. 

Framework

In general I think framework either tells me how to prioritize impacts or understand solvency, and in particular how to situate solvency in relation to debate as a practice. Most framework arguments I see in-round seem to be made out of a precautious fear of leaving the something crucial open on the line-by-line, but with little understanding of the argument’s application to interpreting the rest of the round. At least, that’s what I felt like when I extended framework arguments for awhile. I don’t understand the argument that fiat is illusory. The advocacy actually being implemented has never been a reason to vote aff, as far as I can tell. The purpose of fiat is to force a “should” and not “will” debate. Framework arguments that dictate and defend a certain standard for the negative’s burden to argue that the advocacy “should not” happen are ideal. I’m open to arguments proposing a different understanding of solvency than what a policymaking framework supplies.

My only other observation about framework debates is that every interpretation seems to get slotted into some “critical non fiat –ology” slot or “policy fiat roleplaying” slot. This is a false binary but its frequent assumption means many non-competitive framework (and advocacies!) are set against each other as if they’re competitive. Policymaking and roleplaying are not the same thing; epistemology and ontology being distinct doesn’t mean they’re inherently competitive, for a couple examples.

 This is also the major flaw of most non-topical K v. K debates I see—the advocacies are not competitive. They feel like I.E. speeches forced into the debate format when the content and structure of that content just don’t clash—I mean, it’s like the aff showing up and saying dogs are cool and the neg firing back that cats are cool. It’s just not quite debate as we’re used to, and demands reconceptualizing competition. This is also why I don’t think “no perms in a method debate” makes any sense but I agree with the object of that argument. The topic creates sides—you’re either for or against it. In rounds where each team is just going to propose distinct ways of apprehending the world, whatever that looks like, I see no reason to award noncompetitiveness to either team. (Oh, this should not be used as a justification for negative counterperms. How counterperms being leveraged against perms represents anything less than the death of debate is a mystery to me) I’m not saying don’t have nontopical KvK rounds, please do, just please also read offense against each other’s arguments (cats are cool and dogs are bad). In those rounds, your reason to win is not the same reason the other team loses, which is the case for advocacies which are opportunity costs to each other. For the record, I think critical literature is arguably the most important education debate offers. I just think debate is structured for competition oriented around policy advocacies and the ways that kritikal arguments tend to engage each other challenge that structure in ways we have yet to explore in parli (at least, writ large).

Theory

Don’t have anything in particular to say about this other than that I have a high threshold for evaluating anything other than plan text in a vacuum in determining interp violations. Everything else seems a solvency question to me, but make the arguments you want to and can defend.

Independent Voters

I’ve noticed that I have a pretty high threshold on independent voters. I voted for an independent voter once when the block went for it. Arguments about discursive issues serve an important purpose. But for arguments read flippantly or as a gotcha or, more often, that lack any substantive impact, I always feel a little guilty voting there and jettisoning the rest of the debate, like feeling bad for picking one spoon over another when you’re a kid. I think a lot of judges want the simple way to vote but I don’t, as far as I can tell. They don’t necessarily have to be complicated, but I like thorough ways to vote, which do often involve a lot of nuance or at least word dancing (I believe debate is fundamentally competitive bullshitting, which I do not mean derisively in the slightest).

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a number of years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash. critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a crit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

Hello my name is Aananya. I did PF 4 years in high school and debated nationally in NCFLs and NSDAs.

PF- I am a flow judge and I appreciate line by line rebuttal. I like to see clash between cases, tell me why your case is better than your opponent. Start to weigh in summary and begin constructing voters for your partner to talk about in final focus. Please note if you bring up anything new during final focus I will not flow it.

LD- I do not know much about LD but I understand how LD works. I would like to know why you win, so a portion of your speeches should be explaining why you win so I do not have to make my own conclusion.

Speed- I am fine with speed but if you start spreading, remember the faster you talk the less I can write down.

Cross X- I do not flow cross but if you want me write something down, let me know

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

Please be civil with each other.

Background: In college I debated on the national circuit for parliamentary debate. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate. I currently serve as the assistant coach for Marquette University High School. I have previously served as the head coach for Ronald Reagan College Prep and an assistant coach for Solorio Academy High School.

E-Mail Chain: Yes. Send to bjs.debate@gmail.com. (Note: asking me if I want to be on the e-mail chain is usually a sign that you didn't read my paradigm before the round. It is right here at the top...)

Quick Philosophy: I strongly favor a policy making philosophy. Ideally the AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.

Quick Tips:

1. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you.
2. Do not argue a tagline. Argue the logic and evidence.
3. Maintain clash. Line by line is good.
4. Identify voting issues.
5. Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
6. Do not be rude. Be witty. (Wit = speaker point bumps)
7. Have fun.

Longer Philosophy:

- Planless Aff: If the AFF isn't affirming any specific plan, advocacy or course of action, then the status quo doesn't change. Assuming NEG makes that argument, NEG wins on presumption.

- Tech v Truth: I try to prefer tech to truth. Like all judges I attempt to avoid intervention, and a dropped argument is a true argument.

- Links: I do not think enough scrutiny is usually given to link arguments or link chains. I am a big fan of strategies that attack internal links or the link of a disadvantage/K/etc.

- Advantages and Disadvantages: You need to perform an impact calculus. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. Politics DAs are great.

- Speed: Keep your speed reasonable. While I can handle a speedy round, I think teams who slow down perform better - they understand their round better, and I understand the arguments better. Clarity in the round matters. Make sure you articulate and enunciate your words. Speaking exceptionally quickly to try to read more cards or have more, and less developed arguments, isn't effective (and will hurt your speaks). I will let you know if I have a problem keeping up with (or understanding) you, and I'll give two warnings before I stop flowing. I will not use your cards to fill in what I miss because you are going too quickly (or if I stop flowing because I warned you twice).

If you are doing more than 7 off case arguments, you're not giving enough attention or time to all of the arguments, and you're likely relying on speed. I would far rather have fewer arguments with a deeper dive into the issues than more arguments and cursory explanations with an attempt to win simply by having the other team drop an argument that hasn't been developed much at all. I will weigh how well developed and impacted an argument is that the other team dropped when 8+ off-case are run.

- Cross Examination: I flow CX. Cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.

- Topicality: I will vote on topicality, but my threshold for topicality is rather high. Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain either how the AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework or why NEG's interpretation is better (I enjoy debates about what the proper meaning of a word should be and how that impacts the plan or the debate). If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, you have a problem, and your argument is very unlikely to persuade.

- Performance or Meta-Debate: I am not your judge, and you should strike me. My threshold for theory / topicality arguments against performance debate is low.

- Counterplans: I am a huge fan of counterplans, and I strongly look to functional competition. I enjoy a well run process counterplan. Process does matter in the real world and has real policy implications. I am not a fan of consult counterplans, but I have and will vote for them.

- Theory: I am fine with theory arguments and debates. For conditionality, I am fine with multiple CPs and kritiks, but keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. six or more worlds is not very reasonable). I default to reject the argument not the team. If I am to reject the team, not the argument, have a very good explanation as to why.

- Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but I am only well versed in K literature that is based in law and economics. For almost any other K you're going to need to SLOW DOWN and explain your buzzwords / jargon / concepts. If you don't explain the buzzword / jargon, I'm not searching your cards for what a term means.

I strongly dislike K taglines that are paragraphs. That is not a tagline - it's a mini-speech.

The K needs to link to the specific policy case made and engage with the substance of the Aff's plan. If there is no link to the specific policy or no engagement with the substance of the plan, then there is no reason for me to vote for the K. A successful K will (1) link to the specific policy being argued; and (2) have an alt that (A) is a conditional policy option; (B) competes with the Aff's plan; and (C) you have explained how it functions in the real world. If, at the end of the debate, I am left thinking "So what?" I am going to vote for the Aff if the Aff actually results in change in the status quo that solves for something, when the K does not.

For a K-Aff, the alt in the K-Aff needs to meet the same standards as the alt for any other K - the alt still needs to be topical, create change and solve for some harm.

- Off-Limits Arguments: No argument is out of bounds or off-limits in the debate round. Your team can make any argument it wants. If a team thinks an argument is objectionable or morally wrong, then the burden is on that team to explain why and why I should not vote for it. Merely claiming that something is offensive, immoral or "-ist" isn't enough. Why is it immoral or "-ist"? Why is it unfair or wrong? If your team can't explain why, I won't intervene to do the work for you. Run whatever argument(s) you want.

Note: The above should not be interpreted as carte blanche to engage in ad hominem attacks or other personal attacks in the round. You must be respectful to each other.

- Court or Legal Plans/Arguments: I am a UChicago law grad and a corporate attorney when not judging. I really enjoy listening to plans/counterplans/etc that involve the courts or a legal strategy. That said, I will know if you do not understand how the judicial branch functions, and I will know if your plan/CP actually functions or solves the way that you claim. I will not intervene to vote on these issues if the other team does not call you on it, but my threshold for them to call you on solvency deficits is low.

I did PF debate for 4 years, forensics for 3, and graduated in 2021. I am now going to college at UW-Green Bay Sheboygan Campus. 

There are two big caveats to my judging. First, speak at a pace that is suitable for a Walmart cashier or bus driver. I prefer you are slow and clear as opposed to being fast and jumbled. Second, make your arguments make sense. Don't overuse the debate jargon and be clear in the narrative of the round. Do these two things well and at the very least your speaks will be a bit higher.

I will listen to most arguments but keep in mind if you think your argument is too weird, I probably do too. As long as you both take yourselves seriously, I will (probably) take you seriously as well.

I know it also probably doesn't need to be said, but be civil. I can assure you that I will be making weird faces at all of the crazy stuff you guys say, but I can do that because my camera will be off (if we are online). Don't do it to the other team (unless your camera is also off of course). As for debating in person, try not to make faces at all because it is just rude and kind of lame.

Post-round feedback will be kept at a minimum as we all have lives outside listening to a judge babble about nothing. I will try to be as clear, concise, and thorough as possible in my written ballot. 

If you want verbal feedback on the round beyond what I put on the ballot, let me know after the round and we can work something over another video call or something between rounds. I really want to avoid giving this feedback after the round because it will hold up the entire tournament.

As for the virtual stuff, I will have my camera on only when I am speaking at length and keep it (and my mic obviously) off otherwise. I do not mind what you do with your camera. Having it off or on will not affect whether you win the round or your speaks.

Tl;DR: I've done debate, be human, be nice, I won't give verbal feedback unless you ask, do whatever you want with your camera.

Hello! My name is Liberty Tidberg. I am a university art ed student. I didn't debate in high school, but I am the child of two debate coach parents and have been attending tournaments for my entire middle and high school years. I may not have competed in debate, but I have been raised on it. I have some knowledge of the technical rules of debate, and a vast knowledge of what makes a good argument.

Please No: Spreading, theory, progressive argumentation, discriminatory behavior. If I see you behaving in a way that is abusive to your opponent as a person as opposed to engaging with their arguments, I reserve every right to drop you for it. Debate should be an equitable space for all competitors.

Please speak at a moderate pace and absolutely no spreading. If you are speaking too quickly, I will let you know once and then I will stop flowing.

During crossfire, please be respectful to your opponents, I do not want to see a shouting match. How I Evaluate Rounds: quality > quantity, well-explained arguments, evidence weighing. Make it clear to me how you are winning the round, weighing is paramount.

Remember the goal is to serve as an academic exercise and have fun. Good luck to all competitors.

General: I am a past debater with 3 years spent debating public forum. Overall I strongly prefer quality over quantity when it comes to arguments and evidence. Please keep in mind that I know very little about this debate topic, you must explain to me what your evidence and arguments are saying. Evidence is great, but remember you need to convince me, so make sure to construct a narrative for your evidence and arguments as to why you provide the best "world."

Theory/Counter plans: Please debate either for the resolution or against it, do not pull in any separate plans that are not already part of the resolution or status quo.

Speed: Please speak calmly and clearly. If you speak at a speed I cannot understand, I will not flow your argument or evidence.

Citing Evidence: If you refer to evidence you have previously brought up, please summarize the evidence. If you just say a name and a date I will not remember what evidence you are referring to.

Final Focus: Final focus needs to be spent weighing the round for me. I would like for you to emphasize specifically on my flow what points I should be voting for and why I should care about them.

Framework: If a framework is provided, WITH GOOD ARGUMENTATION, I will use it in the round. If no framework is provided or the framework debate becomes gridlocked, I will use my own utilitarian calculus for judging.

Noah Trilling
noah.trilling@gmail.com

Background

I did policy debate from 2003-2007 (Oceans-Service) at Sheboygan North High School with Jon Voss (currently coaching at Glenbrook South High School) In 2007-2008 (Poverty) I was an assistant coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI under head coach Bill Batterman (currently coaching Woodward Academy) In 2008-2009 (Energy) I was the head coach of Brookfield Central High School. From 2009-2013 I judged frequently at National and Regional Tournaments.

Overview
Paradigm-Tabula Rasa: I’m an open-minded critic but, like everyone, I have certain argument preferences. Don’t let my personal argument preferences alter your strategy, however. You should run arguments based on your pretournament preparations and the arguments you hear in the debate. The arguments that you feel most comfortable with and believe are appropriate for the round will be your best arguments. I’d rather hear arguments you’re familiar with than have you alter your strategy and not know the evidence. I will evaluate all arguments presented in the debate and attempt to minimize judge intervention (to things like mischaracterizing evidence, cheating, etc).

Delivery: Since I've been out of practice evaluating debates for a while now, I've come to prefer evaluating slower debates with more comparative evidence analysis than rounds won by spreading the other team out of the debate. If you are speaking very quickly it is possible I will miss some nuances of your analytics. You need to slow down and highlight these arguments or I may miss them.

Evidence Quality: Researching high quality evidence, explaining warrants effectively, and executing case-specific strategies is the surest way to win in front of me. At the end of the debate I almost always call for evidence. If you are overstating the quality of your evidence or mischaracterizing its claims I might simply disregard it entirely. You are absolutely responsible for providing truthful evidence from qualified sources that accurately represents the nature and scope of your claims.

How to Win
Topicality: I find reasonability claims a bit illogical and unfair in the same way that I find “Counterinterpretation: Only our case is topical” illogical and unpredictable. Any offensive reason that you are "reasonably topical" should be applied as a standard for a definition that includes your affirmative. Alternatively you can spin these arguments as offense against the negatives interpretation. If you can not meet the negatives interpretation AND you can not provide an interpretation with sufficient offense to win the debate, I fail to see why the affirmative should win a topicality debate. Although competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, the affirmative still has the burden of providing a reasonable, predictable interpretation that includes the affirmative. Instead of making vague claims about reasonability, invest time in how your counterinterpretation is grounded in a literature base, preserves core affirmative cases or preserves negative counterplan, kritik and disadvantage ground.

That being said, I don’t like voting on topicality. I’d much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than deal with absurd distinctions on the definition of increase or substantial that have no effect on the division of ground. Negatives need to spend a substantial amount of time in the block and the 2NR explaining the significance of the violation in terms of specific ground and education losses or prove an instance of abuse in the round.

Theory: I am growing increasingly disturbed by the proliferation of blatantly non-competitive plan-inclusive counterplans designed to conform to generic disadvantages (spending, politics, etc). Negatives need to be more creative, plan case-specific strategies and cut advantage counterplans instead of avoiding debating the case.

However, like topicality, I would much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than vote on cheap shot theory arguments. PICs are one of the few theory arguments I have strong feelings about. I also typically find theory as a reason to reject an argument, not the team. Especially with PICs though winning theory can be a significant blow to the 2NR’s impact calculus.

Kritiks: Kritiks are excellent when they are executed properly. However, it is important that you are able to explain the significance of your impact, especially if it is operating outside the traditional utilitarian/policymaking framework. You also need to explain how the alternative functions to overcome the status quo and solve the 1AC.

Many teams have difficulty answering kritiks and I don’t understand why. Kritik alternatives tend to greatly overstate the impact of their adoption. Its important for affirmative teams to highlight the specificity of 1AC solvency evidence to create solvency deficits to the alternative. Instead of allowing kritik hacks to dominate the internal link debates, remind me of the practicality of the affirmative and its ability to create incremental positive change.

Counterplans: Counterplans need to be functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. As I noted above, I am not a big fan of a lot of Generic PICs. Most generic PICs cede too much of the solvency and impact debate to the affirmative. At the same time, PICs rarely capture the intent and the specificity of the 1AC cards, leaving the negatives with a solvency deficit. Instead of running generic PICs to capture 1AC solvency evidence, run advantage counterplans or case specific PICs with specific solvency evidence, internal net-benefits, case-specific disadvantages and impact turns on case.

Disadvantages/Case: I generally file all globally cataclysmic events (environmental collapse, nuclear war, extinction, etc) in the same category of terrible fates. To win you should emphasize probability in impact analysis. Having high quality evidence and extrapolating their warrants will go a long way to convince me of the probability of your impact scenarios. Focusing on smaller impact scenarios is a great way to distinguish your plan from the solvency claims in PICs, big disadvantages, and kritik impact turns and alternatives.

Speaker Point
30/29.5-Perfect/Excellent: A perfect or nearly perfect performance.

29/28.5-Above Average: A good performance that combines technicality, strategic execution, and impressive evidence quality. These speakers should be in contention to break and receive a speaker award.

28/27.5-Average: This indicates an average performance. I would give these to a team with sufficient technical skills and execution to win the debate, but perhaps not in contention to clear or win a speaker award.

27/26.5-Below Average: This indicates a poor performance such as a major strategic error or technical error that had an effect on the outcome of the debate. These will usually be given to a losing team that struggled throughout the entire debate or a debater who made an especially serious strategic error.

I was a public forum debater for three years at George S. Parker High. I am also not a Senator in any capacity.

Tabula-rasa, within reason. This is, however, not an invitation to insist that I buy your squirrely arguments.

Speak at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, do not spread. If you speak above 200 words per minute, know that I will ignore you.

Show grace, patience, and charity to your opponents. Address the best possible interpretation of your opponents argument.

I like the existence of framework, but I especially like framework that is meaningfully discussed and implemented.

Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones. Anything above three contentions is absurd, but one or two is ideal.

Flow judge, but uncarded analysis is totally acceptable and often preferred to mangling evidence for the sake of narrative.

Crossfire should be questions and answers, back and forth. Questions end with a question mark, and are not accusations.

The summary should contain all offense and defense you intend to weigh in final focus.

Collapse off bad arguments, tell me as clearly as you are able what weighing you are winning.

In final focus, specifically enumerate the voters of the round. Yes, that does mean you should tell me which ones you are winning.

ONLY if you want to (._.) Email chain for evidence exchanges, disclose your cases to me and your opponent.

*christianjamesauthor02@gmail.com*