I debated Public Forum and Congress on the Wisconsin Circuit for 4 years (2015-2019).

I evaluate rounds strictly by the flow whenever possible. Speed is fine but it should not compromise the clarity of your arguments: I prefer teams that slow down to make coherent claims as opposed to teams that dump masses of cards at lightning speed. Similarly, I am much more likely to vote for teams that signpost and weigh effectively in their speeches. If you "extend" your arguments without telling me why they are a) relevant and b) more impactful than your opponent's, I find it much harder to vote in your favor. In addition, I prefer a team that has a consistent narrative/advocacy through the round. Also, evidence matters a lot to me, please do not misconstrue it.

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.