Background: In high school, I debated in both Public Forum and LD. I founded a team in Madison while also helping to captain the same team for two years. I advised in the following years for the said team before becoming the Head Coach for the Marquette High School Team. In this case, I also judge and coach some novice policy as well as our LD and PF teams.

POLICY:

Quick Philosophy: I strongly favor traditional formats of structure. You can spin the information however you want but I flow the rounds and if your contentions don't hold or flow through they don't hold. I also time to keep track for myself but let you stop yourself with time unless you're WAY over but please do finish your sentence. You can run anything you'd like but it still has to stand and hold in the round.

Run what you'd like with whatever speed but it still needs to be clear, to the point and correct. Topicalty, Ks, etc, etc are all fine with me.

* T debates are all fine with me but do make sure it is worth your time to mention this. Also again, do this well and do this properly.

*Try not to cede to your opponent's definitions, interpretations or cases. I get some of this is accidental but this is commonly where issues with policy rounds fall. (I note this often as a slip) this means that you essentially accidentally contradicted your case.

In Rounds;

*I do not like when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech.

*Make sure there is clash...without clash there is no round...IE make sure yo are debating in your round.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. Use them or don't that's up to you.

Quick Tips: (LD/PF)

1. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Speed is no problem but don't mix up your words.
2. DO NOT FORGET YOUR VOTERS and speech structures.
3. Maintain clash. Don't forget to flow the opponent's case AND YOUR OWN.
4. Identify voting issues. (YES AGAIN)
5. Take advantage of the cross-examination to ask valid questions to prove a point or find a flaw in the opponent's case.
6. Do not be rude. Do not give an off time roadmap (your time starts with the roadmap). Do not tell me what to do.
7. Have fun. You're all great!

Yes, put me in the chain: ashillinglaw@muhs.edu

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

I participated in speech and debate in high school. I was in Great Speeches, Storytelling, and Original Oratory. I went to state for Storytelling, finishing 5th. Now I volunteer at a local high school as a judge to hopefully give students a good experience from someone who was (semi-)recently in their shoes.

I have been head coach at Bradley Tech High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 17 years, and just now semi retired. but still helping out with the team for the last two. I have been influential in having students qualify for our State Tournament in all debate categories, and Nationals in Policy Debate. We have focused on Lincoln-Douglas the last 6 years however.

SPEED:
Not a fan of speaking so fast that you pass out in the round. I can usually flow a decently fast speaker as long a you are clear. I will let you know if you are too fast or I can't understand you.

TOPICALITY:
I love topicality! I'm biased because that is how I used to win my negative rounds. HOWEVER, a bad T violation will not persuade me to vote for your side. T violations should be well constructed and given weight, as well as how it impacts the negative adversely. For Aff, definitely give justifiable reasons why you should win the T debate; not just with theory arguments.

DISADVANTAGES:

RUN THEM! Just make sure the impact is strong.

COUNTERPLANS:

RUN THEM! HOWEVER, for the purpose of LD, theory might not completely persuade me to vote against a counterplan, unless the neg side drops it, then I will vote on it.

KRITIKS:

RUN THEM! But you don't automatically win them if you do not understand them yourself. If you run it, run it well!

KRITIKAL AFFS:

Not very clear on these. I understand Kritiks, so if they are run in this manner, I'm on board.

THEORY:

This is my weakest area. Still I will listen, if you are very knowledgeable and can convince me.

Overall, I am very tabula rasa when it comes to debate, and I love to learn from the debates I judge. Which is why I am not too much a fan of extremely high speed debates. So I will listen to pretty much ANYTHING if you can persuade me how you win. I look forward to judging you.

I am a middle school teacher, and have been casually involved in speech (primarily) and debate (somewhat) for almost 20 years. However, expect me to be a lay judge in PF. I take notes, but don't necessarily keep a structured flow. Referring to arguments is preferred to referring to cards.

It is important that partners are on the same page. If you want me to vote for something at the end of the round, I will generally expect to see it talked about in the summary. Ideally work to persuade me to your side, a believable story is more effective than one that is technically flowed through.

Don't make crossfire into an argument. If that happens you will probably lose speaker points.

Very Important: If you are rude, condescending, or otherwise make me not want to listen to you, I have made that my RFD in the past, regardless of what arguments are being made. I cannot be persuaded by someone who doesn't use persuasion to get me on their side. That type of behavior destroys the educational value of the debate and discourages both new debaters and judges from participating in the activity.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I am a very simple judge. I prefer stats and logic over something that you know off the top of your head. I also do not understand speed all that well, I'm trying my best with it but I've had trouble understanding it since my debate years. PLEASE HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING YOU ARE GOING TO READ. I will not stress that enough. Little to no evidence will cost you an entire round with me as your judge.I love when competitors clash especially during CX (trust I did it during debates a lot), so just generally clash but don't be rude about it. I will listen to outrageous (out of the box cases) and I find them fun. So if you are willing to do it and take the risk, go for it! Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and any other negative -phobias or -isms will absolutely not be tolerated. You'll get the lowest speaks I can give and I'll find a reason to drop you. Debate is meant to be inclusive, not hurtful. I'll give you pretty high speaks unless you're rude or offensive.

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.

Public Forum Judging Paradigm:

All you need to know: Weigh.

Less relevant information:

*********************

Experience: 4 years mostly circuit PF, congress, extemp; college APDA

Criteria justifying intervention:

1. New arguments in 2nd FF

2. No weighing or implicating = forces me to make value judgements

3. Multiple routes to the ballot without weighing = I'll usually pick the cleanest

*********************

Speaker point criteria, in order of importance:

1. Be very clear and articulate with your explanations and each extensions; blippiness loses you points and clarity wins you points and rounds.

2. Be fluid and graceful as a speaker; persuasiveness.

3. Have a good strategy during crossfire and don't be a dick.

*********************

FAQ:

1. I don't care if you come back in 2nd rebuttal; sometimes it's effective and sometimes it's not.

2. Important defense really should be in 2nd summary and it's not a bad idea to have it in 1st summary.

3. I can follow speed but if you don't talk well at high speed I probably won't be able to flow well either.

4. I'll vote off any argument, including theory, but you must have good/persuasive theory (as you would any other argument).

My name is Gabe Wollenburg. I am a special education / English teacher at Fort Atkinson High School. I am a former member of the Board of Directors for the Watertown Players Theater and a former director for the Watertown Players Theater Youth Program. I've performed in several shows with the Watertown players and have been part of several readings, performances, and radio plays put on by the players.

1992 I won a scholarship for being a good writer. In 2002 I won a toy school bus for being a good writer. I often win trivia contests. I have a YouTube channel that my students often find and think they've uncovered a secret only to be disappointed at how much time I spend playing videogames and making movies of my dogs.

I love science fiction and fantasy, videogames, cowboy stuff, and goofing off and eating candy. Not in that order.

Please reach out if you have questions or want to talk.

Approach to Scoring / Judging

I rank individual performances on a five-by-five rubric as per the criteria for evaluation for the category I'm judging, that way I never pit performers against each other but instead give each performer an opportunity to achieve the criteria in full.