This is my first year judging debate for forensics. However, I have a lot of experience judging forensics, including extemporaneous speaking. I know how to craft good arguments and hope my views will help you grow as debaters!

Do you judge on framework or contentions?
The short answer "it depends".
I flow so it just depends on where I think you are winning.

Use good evidence.
Make sure you are using reputable sources (peer-reviewed and/or follow journalistic ethics) with proper citation. Some examples of sources that I don't find reputable:Wikipedia, Infowars, Breitbart, Shareblue. I should be able to follow your citation to find your claimed evidence if needed.

Have your evidence ready to show your opponent should they ask for it.

Side note: If your opponent "flashes" or emails their case to you during the round, delete it at the end. Don't use this as an underhanded opportunity to help your team prep out against an opponent. Although, I think LD has evolved where everyone may be sharing cases in advance of the rounds. I guess my rule of thumb--ask your opponent what their comfort level is.

Clarity.
Speak loudly and clearly. Direct your speeches to the judge. In Cross, direct your questions to your opponent. I don't flow cross, but I am listening for things I think I will hear in speeches. I like roadmaps (off-the-clock) and "sign-posting" within the speech to help with my flowing. Be clear in your arguments in terms of how you are linking everything together (framework, claims, warrants and impacts). Think of ways to easily summarize an idea.

If you use jargon, be prepared to explain it.

Slow down on your tag-lines for your value, value criteria, contentions. Also contention taglines are like headlines--make them pithy and to the point. Then you use your evidence and analysis to explain your contention.

Remember to continue to use your evidence in your rebuttals. Give me the impacts of the world you are creating.

If something is dropped or extends through, you need to say it. Don't assume I will do that for you.

Summarize what you want me to write on the ballot with "Voters" in your last speech. You can't cover everything in the last 2 minutes so it should be a summary of what you think I should write in my RFD.

Speed. In terms of speed, talking faster than 300 words/minute (wpm) you do at your own risk. I read at about 300wpm. Most audiobooks are read at about 150wpm. Anything being read faster than 300wpm is faster than most auctioneers. I find "spreading" to be a lazy tactic--trying to throw everything you can at your opponent also means you want the judge to sift through your pile of arguments as well. If you speak faster than 300wpm, then you run the risk of me not catching the important parts of your argument. At a minimum, slow down on your taglines for your value, value criteria, contentions, warrants.

Clash. I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each other's cases. If you run progressive arguments (meta arguments), link it back to the resolution and your opponent's case. Otherwise, I may or may not see it as topical/relevant.

If there is no clash in the around then you are asking me to intervene--so I may judge then on a presentation or entertainment skills. Just keep this in mind.

Be respectful. Opponents should be respectful. I understand the adrenaline can get flowing, but being abusive or sarcastic won't help your cause and will lower your speaker points. Even if you are the smartest person in the room and I am the dumbest, the judge's determination is what matters. Insulting the judge will also lower your speaker points.

References:

SPJ Code of Ethics

Revised September 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. CT at SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

Add me to any e-mail chains: hjclarkin@wisc.edu

I am a former high school debater so chances are anything you do won't surprise me. If your argument is well-structured and well supported you should do just fine. I'm good with progressive if thats your cup of tea. If I can't understand what you're saying and your thoughts aren't clear your speaker points and my ultimate decision will definitely be affected. In my opinion, speaker points are very inflated in recent years and as such I start everyone at 27 speaker points and increment or decrement as applicable. Please weigh your impacts or I won't care. If you go overtime in your speech I'm not going to stop you, but I will fully stop flowing and stop listening after the grace period is over. Do not tell me what to flow and do not expect me to flow any cross-ex/fire. I will not disclose my final decision (unless tournament rules state otherwise or its a panel decision) or speaker points, but I will give quick, broad critiques to everyone in the round. Most importantly: be kind to each other, be respectful, and have fun.

I spend the majority of tournaments in the tabroom. In 2015-2016, for example, I judged only one round. As a result, if I'm in the back of the room, I will be a bit of a fish out of water and likely something is going wrong with the world. I'm old and judge with an old-school philosophy. Make sense, explain your evidence and treat everyone with civility.

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

PF Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

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

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

General Overview:

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

Presentation Preferences:

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

Argumentation Preferences:

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

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

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

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

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

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

Presentation Preferences:

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

Argumentation Preferences:

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

For all categories of debate I follow the clean slate paradigm. Everyone starts on equal ground, with nothing against them/their side. As a former policy debater, I do put more weight on evidence and statistics, but am still very accepting of logical statements/arguments. For example, if a speaker does not have a physical piece of paper with a statement from a source telling me that experiencing a drought is going to have a negative effect on a farmer's crops, I have no intention on penalizing that speaker in any way, or not believing the clearly logical statement that was just made.

I also do not believe, in any way, that any resolution in any category can lead to nuclear war or extinction. If any speaker/team runs either of these arguments with me, there is a very good chance of that speaker/team losing the round.

I can be ok with speed as long as I can understand your words. If you go too fast and are too garbled, I cannot flow you.

Lastly, I am a judge who WILL dock speaker points for poor decorum. Watch your language and check your attitude and/or sarcasm at the door!

I'm a retired attorney, and this is my 13th year of involvement with debate, congressional debate, and forensics. My undergraduate and master's work were in critical reviewing applied to artistic performance disciplines. My professional life has been devoted to framing arguments, crafting refutation arguments and determining the appropriate criteria for evaluation of virtually any type of presentation. I'm a kind and thoughtful person whose main goal is for you to hone skills and become a confident, logical and gracious person.

My life as a lawyer absolutely shapes my approach as a debate judge. I expect the Aff to define the parameters of the debate, and the Neg to attack those ideas DIRECTLY; the proverbial "clash of ideas." I long for the day when the Neg accepts the Aff's framework and beats them on those terms. A distinct v/vc should be woven into the Neg arguments, but should not be presented like a script. The debate should not look like two people giving side-by-side presentations. Aff frames/defines; Neg reacts and refutes. You can guess from this that I am not a big fan of kritiks when the Neg spends too much time on a presentation that does not actively engage. The goal is to be flexible and nimble with what is thrown at you in the moment. I expect the argument to narrow as the debate goes along which may mean you must jettison arguments that aren't getting traction. I disfavor new arguments in summation. Please remember that new arguments are disallowed in rebuttals, but new evidence is not.

I intensely dislike "spreading" because it is a dishonest approach to the debate. I do not believe debate is a card game where the person who jams more ideas/cites more cards into the time period wins, and/or wins hoping the opponent "dropped' something. Dropping an argument is not a point scored on a ledger. It is an opportunity to argue the point from your perspective.

Spreading negatively impacts your opponent’s ability and my ability to absorb your arguments. I can't evaluate arguments that I can’t properly follow. I will caution you if you are speaking too fast. Repeatedly if I have to. But at some point, if you don't adjust, it will impact your speaker points. The most important things to me are the quality and depth of your presentation. You don't have gobs of time to play with so impress me with your reasoning. Please don't cite a card that you don't discuss or are unprepared to defend. Depth and quality rule with me. Accordingly, I do not use a traditional "flow sheet" and I really don't want your written case. I reward people who are fast on their feet.

I do not permit "flex time" and view it as a sneaky way to obtain more cross-x time than permitted. And speaking of cross-x, it should not be an occasion to engage in a discussion/mini debate with your opponent. I will caution you if you step over that line. Cross-x is meant for pointed clarifying questions and allowing your opponent to respond to your queries. If he or she doesn't reply to your satisfaction, then use it in your rebuttal.

I'm okay with counterplans providing the CP does not monopolize the first Neg speech by disallowing enough time for the first negative rebuttal. Counterplans must be shaped in a way that targets the Aff framework.

I am weary of overly-used frameworks like morality/util and unsound impacts like “morality doesn’t matter if we’re dead.” I look for a fresh, creative lens to view the resolution/impacts. I appreciate creativity that addresses real world concerns. Your value and criterion should not be a means to an easy win. It should reflect how deeply you’ve thought about the resolution. We're not all going to die tomorrow. What can we do in the meantime to improve our lot? That takes more intellectual prowess to tackle and is more impressive to me.

Finally, I expect debaters to be kind and gracious. I place high priority on good sportsmanship. Debaters who are kind and gracious will find higher speaker points. I will step in to caution debaters who are rude or unkind to opponents. I expect debaters to understand that everyone is doing the best they can, and that our circumstances and resources are often very different. So, I expect you to meet your opponent “where they are” not where you expect them to be.

Best of luck and best wishes to all.

Experience:

I have judged debate on and off for about a decade now, much less in recent years than former years. Depending on the year, I focused more heavily on LD or PF. I enjoy judging both.

While not a debater myself as a student, I have professional experience debating issues and policies at a professional level. I am a former lobbyist for a state agency and have many hours of expert legislative testimony under my belt.

Judging Philosophy:

Anything can theoretically win with me, but if you are going to go to the absurd to create a case, the threshold for succeeding is much more difficult than a straightforward case. I like concrete contentions, clear rebuttals, and direct clash on issues rather than circumscribed commentary.

I believe that students should have the freedom to explore whatever viewpoints or positions that they bring to the table. I think it is inherently harmful to the activity and civil society as a whole to prescribe a set of beliefs or preferred speech. You will not see any political stickers on my judging tablet, as I want to be a neutral and welcoming judge to all students. Win the debate based on the strength of your arguments, rhetorical construction, and persuasive speaking; not by having the “right” thoughts or beliefs. That said, please be respectful to each other. Debate contentions and philosophies; do not personally attack each other.

Speaker Points:

I am primarily a forensics judge, and I bring my forensics perspective to determine speaker points. Presentation to the judge or the opponent, clear articulation, grammatically correct word usage, and an effort to deliver rather than just read your speeches all help earn extra points with me.

I can tolerate a bit of spread (rapid speaking) in delivery and generally do not factor speed into speaker points. If you are going faster than I can comprehend, I will interrupt you and request that you go slower. But if I am not requesting that you slow your speed, you may assume that I can understand what you are saying.

Logistics:

I will not request evidence or cases, as I want to be persuaded based on the verbal debate rather than deliberating over written briefs. The exception is if there is a challenge of validity that the debaters cannot resolve themselves, but even then, I am more likely to determine validity based on the dialogue of the debaters rather than reviewing the evidence myself.