I have been working as a judge for school districts since 2017. As a 2016 graduate from the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, I have staffed five presidential campaigns. I also have worked in the field of public health and tutored economics. I staffed a COVID testing center for four months. I am passionate about environmental economics, and how the intersections of public health and economics have an impact on human health and wellbeing. I wrote a paper about the differences between carbon taxes and cap and trade policies during my junior year of high school, and have worked for both Kirsten Gillibrand and Tom Steyer. Gillibrand received an A- for her campaign from Greenpeace, and Steyer has been a proponent of carbon taxes. My other academic work involves performing a chi-square analysis on Brasica rapa to determine the effect of a carcinogen. I have helped coach students and also was the captain of the speech team my junior year of high school, and I competed in Student Congress. I try to judge public forum as much as possible, and have judged multiple times in a year.

Speaking

If a student is speaking too fast, I will let the student know they are speaking too fast. I can also provide time signals when students are at one, two, or three minutes. Students can speak as fast as they would like to speak.

Evaluating Speeches

I evaluate speeches based on evidence and reasoning. The role of the final focus should be to succinctly summarize an argument. The argument should be extended in the summary speech. I weigh evidence over analytics. While style is important, please recognize that rational speeches are generally stronger and my preference. Reasoning should be based on facts, and either argument can be supported if it is argued well.

I would like to see speeches that are content driven and are well-researched. In the past, I have recognized when evidence is factually incorrect. Evidence should also support the overall argument.

General: I am a past policy debater, high school and college coach. I have been out of debate since about 2006 when we had our first child and am now re-joining debate as he starts in the activity. Public Forum is new to me so at this point I'll be adapting to this different format and structure. As a policy judge, I was tabula rosa meaning I acted as though I did not have pre-conceived notions and would let the debaters present what should matter and convince me as to why. I also was very focused on the flow and weighing of arguments - I am sure I will approach public forum the same way. I generally consider dropped arguments conceded arguments to the other team. The team that presents the best framework for evaluating the flow at the end of the debate will win.

Speed: Any speed is fine as long as you are clear.

Argumentation: My judging is based on the flow and ability to win argumentation. Try to stay in clash and identify voting issues. Use signposting to tell me where you are going.

Referencing Evidence: Do not use just name and date, please provide some of the tag so we can be on the same page of the flow.

Cross: I do not flow cross; you will need to reference important events during cross in future speeches.

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.

Calling for Cards: My preference is to not have to examine cards after the round but will in instances where the debate hinges on individual cards or intersections of cards - be prepared to provide them. Cards that cannot be substantiated or are fabricated is not acceptable.

Conduct: People can be assertive and confident -no issues. Being rude, disrespectful, condescending or intolerant to anyone in the room, including your partner, is not acceptable. Debate is a game and a competition and should be enjoyable for all. If you are better than the other team my expectation, is you "kill them with kindness". The judge is the final arbiter of the round - treating them with disrespect can and will impact the 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.

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? I weigh them equally.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? The final focus is to wrap up all the important points on your side of the flow, as well as compare them to your opponents flow to show why they’re more relevant if possible.

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? It doesn’t have to, but it definitely helps if it does.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? I way more towards analytics, because while data is important, it doesn’t make an argument alone.

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.

What school(s) are you affiliated with? I have students in the Middleton Cross Plains School District

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? When in high school, I participated in Policy debate for 2 years.

How often do you judge public forum debate? This is my first time judging Public Forum

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Fast is fine

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Yes. If I am unable to understand a speaker, I will ask them to speak more clearly.

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? I prefer arguments over style, but both are important

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? During the final focus I expect speakers to explain why their argument has prevailed, due to a set of the most important elements, and potentially also why other arguments are either not as important or are not as persuasive.

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? Yes. If a team articulates a strong argument, is rebutted by their opponent, and then fails to extend their argument, I would consider that an effective rebuttal and an abandoned line of argument.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? I way analysis over evidence

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.

I like to hear a well-constructed logical argument supported by evidence.

This is my second season judging debate. I am a parent judge. Please don't speak too fast. I do not provide verbal feedback at the end of the round; however, I aim to provide extensive written feedback. I pay close attention to the level of professional decorum shown during the round. Have fun and be kind to one another!

Here is my professional bio:

Carrie Sanders has spent 17 years focused on community development finance. Prior to forming Hope Community Capital LLC, Carrie has been the Director of Lending and the Director of Structured Community Finance for a statewide Community Development Financial Institution where she managed the organization’s community development consulting practice, providing consulting to mission-based organizations to access the capital for high impact projects. She also managed the development of the organization’s successful New Markets Tax Credit program. Carrie has also worked as a senior consultant for a national accounting firm. In this role, Carrie assisted nonprofit organizations, and community development entities with raising and deploying a variety of economic development and affordable housing financing tools including New Markets Tax Credits (“NMTC”), Low-income Housing Tax Credits, tax incremental financing, and HUD grants and loans. Carrie worked at the City of Kansas City, Missouri as part of the City’s development finance division where she was an integral part of a team responsible for conducting front end financial analysis of economic development projects seeking public subsidy including TIF and brownfield remediation financing. While at the City of Kansas City, Carrie developed the City’s NMTC program and led the City’s efforts to apply for and win its first allocation of $40 million. Carrie’s career also includes experience in strategic planning for nonprofit community development organizations, public housing program evaluation, affordable housing finance with a particular focus on re-entry housing, and economic impact analysis. Carrie is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where she earned her graduate degree in City Planning with a focus on community and economic development finance. Carrie was previously on faculty at Edgewood College’s Social Innovation & Sustainability Leadership Graduate Program and the School of Business where she lectured on topics of sustainable community development and social innovation.

Introduction - Tim Wells

Coach and judge for DeForest Area High School.

As a student, debated in Policy in HS and college for several years in the early 90s.

After a long absence, got back into debate in the fall of 2021. Judged at one tournament last season and 4 so far this season.

In terms of speaking, I am not a fan of speed but won't interrupt to slow anyone down.

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? EQUALLY.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? TO RESTATE KEY ARGUMENTS, IMPACTS, AND SUGGESTED REASONS FOR DECISION.

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? NOT NECESSARILY.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? I HAVE A MARGINAL PREFERENCE FOR ANALYTICS.