2021 — NSDA Campus,
Varsity Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
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.
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.
*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)
- Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Speed is no problem but don't mix up your words.
- DO NOT FORGET YOUR VOTERS and speech structures.
- Maintain clash. Don't forget to flow the opponent's case AND YOUR OWN.
- Identify voting issues. (YES AGAIN)
- Take advantage of the cross-examination to ask valid questions to prove a point or find a flaw in the opponent's case.
- Do not be rude. Do not give an off time roadmap (your time starts with the roadmap). Do not tell me what to do.
- Have fun. You're all great!
Yes, put me in the chain: email@example.com
If you have any questions you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org This is also how you add me to the email chain. Let me when you do it.
Please don't try to judge-adjust too much... this should serve more as a guideline to introduce yourself to me.
What am I good for?:
--K on the negs
--T (If you feel you can argue this competently, do it, but most people don't)
--Anything honestly... I am not a fan of conditionality for negs though unless it's just for one item.
--I will vote on disclosure theory
More In-Depth Background (Before Round Version After):
SQUO: I'm not going to pretend like I don't know anything about the status quo, so don't act or pretend like something is happening that isn't or vice versa. (i.e. If an opponent has a slightly dated card about a poll and you cross-ex and say "Well aren't these cards outdated?" and try to imply like there's been any radical difference between then and now in terms of poll numbers, I'm not going to care for that unless you have something crazy or radical to back it up that would be substantial to the debate. Don't cross-ex dumb questions.)
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.
SPEED: Go as fast as you want but Read LOUD and CLEAR. If you are mumbling through your evidence, I will not hear you...
I have an auditory disability that makes it hard to hear soft sounds. Clear and loud is the best way for me to comprehend evidence, but again, you don't have to be slow.
Things of note before your round starts:
If you are trying to be mean simply for the purpose of being mean because you want to overwhelm the other team and make them look bad, I will see right through it.
Add me to the email chain
Road-Mapping is cool
I vote off the flow (tabs judge) so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind. If you try to confuse the other team instead of debating the specifics of your policy, I will vote down your team more than likely.
SPEAKER POINTS FOR ALL:
Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could get speaker points docked...
1.) Being an a-hole in your speeches towards someone or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner, I will have more leniency when it comes to those who may be discriminated against for being “too aggressive”, so don’t worry (I’m talking more about people who usually identify as women who have this issue)
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge" over and over) I understand it's a habit for some, but avoid it if possible.
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me... for the love of God, do not do this. I've debated for years, you don't need to pretend you like me or the other team. Be mean to me if you want, I do not care, just don’t pretend like I’m any different than you in the round.
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) Not Road Mapping In-Round (Just say onto ___) Trying to trick the other team by not listing your advantages by name only hurts my flow for you. Just do it.
7.) DO NOT walk around the room during your speech or someone else's speech unless it's to grab evidence. I will heavily dock you.
8.) I will not dock you for speaking for your partner in the middle of their speech if you need to include something... I will listen to you. Your partner doesn't need to repeat it. Just know that I will take that into consideration if you're doing massive chunks of a speech and the negs run an education T argument.
I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I only debated policy in high school. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
Okay with identity args, high-theory, soft-left, just explain how the advocacy functions and solves
Make sure you are not name-dropping and assuming everyone knows who or what you are talking about.
Just make sure if you run a K Aff tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.
Links: I'm not as persuaded by links of omission or links to the status quo unless you can explain how the aff furthers the harms you've isolated. Specific links are the best, but I'm persuaded by both links to the plantext and links to the advantages/impacts/representations of the aff.
Impacts: I'll evaluate the pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts of the k. Framing is important to tell me what kinds of impacts I should evaluate and whether theory should come first.
Alts/litbase: I probably don't know your theories or your authors so be sure to explain how the alt functions and try to minimize jargon and name-dropping at every level of the flow. I'll vote on all kinds of alts as long as you explain how they function and win solvency of something (not necessarily the case, depending on the round and how impacts are weighed.)
Perm: I won't vote on a perm that wasn't clearly articulated in the 2AC. You need to explain how it functions so that I can evaluate it weighed against the alt as a stand-alone.
If you have any questions you can contact me at email@example.com This is also how you add me to the email chain. Tell me when you do it.
I don’t flow cross-ex unless it’s clarifying for me, which means that you need to point out anything you find out during cross-ex during your speech.
No statements during cross-x questioning. Period. I will not flow statements and will disregard a response to the statement unless I feel it clarifies those who are being cx'd, not the ones making the statement. I also will not flow anything that has nothing to do with their evidence or anything I feel does not connect to the debate itself.
Inform me clearly when you are done with your time aka when your 1AC is over, when cross-x is over, when your prep is done, etc.
If you feel that the author has specific biases, point them out and explain. I want to know that you know authors and how to identify credible sources. Okay with Open Cross ex as long as you don't dominate your partner's cross-ex
I'll enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides is a must to win in these debates. I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on the specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.
Just make sure if you run a K Aff tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.
Topicality is a great position and one of the most important for me and unfortunately, hardly anyone goes for it. It has to be run well though… I get a lot of people who will go for T but do not actually have a fleshed-out reason for me to vote for T. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of God don't read reverse voters on T.
Framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Have internal links to fairness, education, etc.
Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive, a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me.
I'm not likely to vote on a CP unless it is actually argued well. I won’t if it’s abusive. I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR. I will vote for it if it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off blocks.
Class of 2023 of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, with a major Sociology and Pre-law, with a minor in Political Science.
I've debated in policy all four years for Ronald Reagan High School (2016-2020). Since my high school debate days came to end, I have been judging debate in both policy, PF and LD. In summer 2023, I also obtained a fellowship working with National Association for Urban Debate leagues, furthering my experience in policy debate!
Yes, put me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org :)
I am a TABS judge, which stands tabula rasa, latin for "clean slate". Basically, this means you have to show and explain to me why arguments should be voted on. Clean slate means that I come in a round with no prior assumptions on what to vote on. In essence, I will vote on anything as long as it is properly explained and elaborated.
I do not tolerate any racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments.
Speed: I think debate is about how well you argue, not how fast you can read. I am okay with spreading and speed, as long as you are clear.
Cross ex: Open cross ex always okay, just be mindful of individual speaker points
Framework: I LOVE framework, I will evaluate rounds on framing if you present one to me. As I do have a background in policy debate, I am familiar and very fond of framing that ranges anywhere from util, deontology, to consequentialism and categorical imperative.
Value Criterion: I like comparative analysis and direct clash against your opponent's framing. Please be sure to it pull through the round! If your value criterion is identical, I will leave it up to you to make those distinctions to me and/or outweighing your position on the resolution.
I am a first-year judge and am brand new to structured debate as a whole! I'm looking for clear and concise arguments from both sides and use a straight policymaker paradigm. Stick to the stock issues and whatever you do, avoid speedreading! Your arguments should be about quality and not how fast you can ramble them off.