E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

Background:

I debated in public forum for four years in the SD circuit. I qualified for nationals three times (twice in public forum and once in IX). I now am a first year studying international politics at Georgetown University.

PF:

I am a flow judge, please sign-post! If neither team has a framework I default to a CBA. I appreciate clash throughout a debate round. I consider myself a tabula rasa judge.

I won't take prep for looking at cards, but please try to be fast and efficient when sharing evidence.

I am a pretty laid-back judge, but I do not tolerate any kind of discrimination in a debate round. I do not have a problem dropping people for excessive rudeness.

Hey everyone!

I was a PF debater for 4 years, so I understand that style of debate well. As for policy and LD, I'm less experienced.

I consider myself to be a flow judge, so please make sure you signpost in your speeches or else I may not catch everything you say!

As for speeches, I'm really okay with whatever you want to do, just make sure that the FF includes where you are winning on the flow. Please give me reasons to vote for you!

PLEASE be respectful to those you are debating against! I love debate for the inclusivity, so just be a nice person!

Feel free to email me about any questions, or include me in any email chains: jaleigha.kambeitz@gmail.com

DEBATE EXPERIENCE:

• 4 years PF (half trad local circuit, half TOC circuit where I did much better)
• 4x NSDA national qualifier in events that had nobody else competing for the slot
• 1x TOC gold competitor where I got obliterated

I hate evidence misuse. Don’t miscut or misconstrue your evidence. Paraphrasing is fine but the bar for a violation gets much lower - it’s harder to verify proper evidence use if you’re not reading it from the source. If you’re a novice / JV I won’t apply most of this to you, but I might dock your speaks if evidence isn’t complete, so DW if it isn’t perfect - otherwise, I MIGHT BE THE MOST STRICT JUDGE ON EVIDENCE YOU WILL EVER HAVE!

Because of everything above, I’m sympathetic to disclosure at TOC BID TOURNAMENTS. Even then, you still have to win the shell, I’m not an auto vote on it.

I’ll expand this more later, but just know I’ll flow and vote based on the arguments. Weigh your impacts for me or you might not like how I vote. Collapsing is good the vast majority of times! Unless you’re confident you can only outweigh if you access everything, you should narrow it down in the second rebuttal or first summary to a contention (if they have turns answer those, then concede delinks) Speed is ok up to the point that I need a speech doc to keep up (I still want speech doc to scan your evidence as you read)- I know that’s vague so ask for clarification before round if you need. If your opponents say slow down, then you slow down.

My Email for chains (this will be useful in everyvarsity round) - Vaughn.research@outlook.com

Feel free to email me for whatever else - I was in your position too, I’m not some god. Postrounding is good for education or whatever so don’t hesitate if you think I made the wrong decision. I didn’t, but if you disagree we can talk about it.

[Personal Info]

Pronouns: She/Her

I do Lincoln Douglas debate, did public forum for 3 years, I’ve done congress, and then big question (very very poorly) for a hot second, so you don’t have to dumb down jargon for me.

Email: savannah.j.kloster@gmail.com

My ballots tend to be mainly evaluation specific to how you did in the round and I get very hyper-focused on personal comments that I usually forget to write RFDs, unless they are online ballots, then as soon as I leave the school I fill them out; If you didn’t get an RFD or need clarifications from me just email me and I will give you an RFD or the clarifications you need to the best of my abilities.

I don’t disclose rounds, so don’t ask me to or try to persuade me into disclosing, you're just wasting time.

I know what it’s like to have to carry teammates in a debate, and just how excruciating the whole thing is so I have zero tolerance for it if I see it in round.

Also I make faces when I think about things which makes me look very angry and like I’m scowling, ignore that I just have a RBF it doesn’t relate to how you’re doing a majority of the time.

If you know Martin Kloster, yes I am the communist’s sister

[General]

/Evidence/

PF:

If you want me to take the evidence you have into consideration in voting you have to carry it throughout all your speeches; you can’t give evidence in Rebuttal, drop it in summary, and then try and bring it up in Final Focus because that means you dropped it so I won’t flow it. If someone asks for a card, give it to them, if you say no and you have access to it it’ll be very sketchy (plus bad debate etiquette) and I’ll drop the card from the flow and I might ask to see the card after round

LD:

it’s the same as stated before just change the speech names.

/Speed and Performance/

I don’t like spreading because it’s hard to understand what the person is saying but also don’t go too slow because it’s just as bad as spreading. My preferred speed is a moderate pace. Just make sure you speak clearly as far as performance is concerned.

/Time/

You need to use up your speech time, I hate it when there’s a minute or more left on the clock so try your best to get as close to the set time as possible. If you can’t think of anything else to say about your opponent's case, go over your own case and explain why it stands or your framework, something to fill your time if you have no more evidence to read. I will time your speeches, I will also time your prep but I tend to get distracted during prep so don’t tell me a set amount of time. If you want a set amount of prep then you can time yourself and then just tell me when you're done using prep and I’ll stop my timer. I recommend having a timer up with you so you can see how much time you have left, it makes giving speeches much easier in my opinion.

/Speaks/

Speaks for me is not only how well your speeches were but if you were actually trying and showing interest/know what you're talking about; in other words not just speaking pretty but being confident. Just for a bonus for reading my paradigm if you tie Mike Wazowski into your speech I'll give you an additional .5 speaker points.

High: you did your best and you tried and gave good speeches, I will only give you a 30 if you are absolutely perfect on everything you do and have a good amount of debate etiquette but you are also assertive and don't let your opponents walk all over you.

Low: You went silent for a majority of the speech, you had an abusive argument, you showed disrespect/lack of care. If you are abusive to your opponents you will get as close to 0 speaks from me as possible without getting a full 0, and if you make your partner carry you the entire round and do nothing you will instantly get the lowest possible speaks from me.

/Framework/

PF:

If you're going to use a framework and want me to vote under it then you need to bring it up in all your speeches so you don’t drop it. If your framework outweighs your opponents explain to me why, same goes with why it completely goes against your opponent's case and why you win under it. Although I don’t like it if you only drop your framework in rebuttal but carry it through your summary and final focus I’ll vote under it, but only if you use all your time up in rebuttal.

LD:

I AM BIG ON FRAMEWORKS!!! PLEASE tie this into what you’re saying in round and have it actually make sense, this is the thing that really differentiates ld from pf. If you’re running a framework it should never be both deontological and consequential, that’s not how frameworks work. Just carry frameworks through the round as its a main thing that I use to vote in the round.

/Case/

With cases just make sure it’s understandable and set up in an organized manner. When I say this I mean state your contentions and subpoints so it’s easier to flow and judge the round. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps so I know which case you're going down and so it’s easier to flow and judge on what you’re saying. If you’re using an off-the-clock roadmap then actually follow it.

/Variation/

For novices, I completely understand that you are new to debate so I’m more lenient on things that I wouldn’t allow, from Judging a practice round for Varsity for example. I tried to make my paradigm all-level friendly so it doesn’t matter what level you are.

experience:

-current pf debater at sf roosevelt

-2x qualifier to the TOC (won most the toc bids in the state my junior year)

-2x qualifier to nats

general:

-flow judge (tech over truth) also i try to be tabula rasa as best as i can.

-2nd rebuttal has to frontline

-2nd rebuttal/1st summary should collapse on one argument (collapsing does not mean dropping)

-off the clock roadmaps before speeches are really helpful and so is signposting

-weighing is super important for me; tell me why i should prefer your argument over your opponents argument

-pre-reqs, short-circuits, and link-ins are gasssss

-EMPIRICS WIN, OFFENSE WINS, WEIGHING WINS

prog:

-if u want to run theory or ks go ahead, just make sure it's understandable

-im good w tag team and flex prep

other:

if u have any questions feel free to email me at im3106@k12.sd.us

fyi: i'm used to judging novices so please forgive me!

i debated novice PF for one year and varsity PF for two years at roosevelt high school in south dakota and am continuing my speech & debate journey at colorado college. i am double majoring in environmental science and political science. if you're looking for something to talk about pre-round, i have a dog, a cat, and five fish, i love the national history day annual competition (and plan to judge for that too), and i really like playing the sims 4!

hey, you! don't stress. i'm nice, i swear. just take a moment to chill. vibe.

you like extra speaks? show confidence in what you're saying. confidence is huge for me

most important speech to me is summary. weighing is important. extend key arguments into summary and final focus or i will not vote on that argument

i'll start prep time for exchanging evidence when you begin reading, and i'll end it when you stop. for virtual tournaments, please tell me when you begin and when you stop

watch my body language. i'm not subtle. if i'm shaking my head, you're not making sense (i've been there, just change the subject). if i look like i'm grooving out, you're doing great

no tolerance for sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

here's the deal with theory and k's. i'm not a fan of them just because i feel like you should be debating the topic at hand. i believe the most educational debates come from prepping, and running something like theory or k limits the amount someone can prep for the resolution itself. that doesn't mean i won't vote for a theory/k though. i still expect good responses from the opponents

don't interrupt your opponent in crossfire for no reason, but if they're overexplaining than please go ahead

i usually don't flow crossfire, so make sure you're keeping good eye contact. crossfires are great persuasion points for me

novices only: tell me your favorite song = +0.5 speaks

since i'm not a super experienced judge, please don't talk too fast, but i can handle some speed

also i know basic debater terminology but not as much as my more experienced peers so please go easy on me

evidence that can't be provided within two minutes will be marked off of my flow

also cheesy but please have fun (it's not that serious)

I am a former South Dakota debater who competed in PFo, oratory, and interp. I’m now the head debate coach at Mitchell High School. I’m a traditional Public Forumer; this event was created for lay judges and heavy Public Forum jargon should be left to the side.

- This isn’t policy. Slow down and give me a quality delivery for higher speaks. Throwing delivery by the wayside for a fast and robotic presentation is a massive mistake so many debaters commit. I’m an Aristotle girlie - persuade me with your ethos, logos, and pathos!

- I'll be closely following the arguments presented, and if you believe there's a pivotal point crucial for winning the round, please ensure to address it in one of your subsequent speeches.

- Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card.

- Direct quotes > Paraphrasing. I won't immediately downvote you for paraphrasing, but if your debate opponent can provide a compelling reason, I might reconsider. The same principle applies to the misuse of evidence. If your opponent requests a card citation, and it contradicts your argument or the way you presented it, it could be deemed abusive, potentially leading to a loss in the round.

- Creativity in arguments is encouraged, as long as you have the link chain to back it up. Using abusively creative arguments is not my favorite (ie., student loan debt forgiveness will lead to nuclear war.)

- Weighing metrics are SO IMPORTANT! Even if it seems obvious to you, lay it all out for me so you ensure it gets weighed how you see fit.

- Summaries should not be utilized as second rebuttals; use your summary for voters and to tell me why I’m preferring you on each flowed contention.

- Be assertive, not aggressive! I’m such a firm believer of “If you have to be mean to get your point across, you’re a bad debater.” Aggressiveness will cost you speaker points.

- I have come to despise off-the-clock roadmaps and asking if every individual in the round is ready; you can begin and we’ll catch up.

- Telling me what I’m going to be voting is such a pet peeve of mine. Tell me what to weigh, what to prefer, what to analyze, what to flow through - do NOT tell me what I’m going to vote. :)

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

I am a current freshmen at the University of Minnesota pursuing a degree in Biochemistry. I have prior experience with Debate as I used to be on the Sioux Falls Roosevelt Varsity Debate team for three years.

Judging

I am open to most arguments and strategies, however, I am not big on theory and won't vote solely off theory. Feel free to speak at any speed you are comfortable with. But if you are going to read your speeches fast, please make sure that you are speaking clearly or I will be unable to flow your arguments. If you speak clearly and concisely, I will give high speaks. If you are being rude to your opponents, I will take speaker points off. I would also appreciate it if you tell me what side of the flow you'll be starting on at the beginning of your speech, as it makes it a lot easier to flow.

I will also not consider any arguments that are not flowed throughout the round; if you make a point during a rebuttal and don't flow it through the summary and final focus, then I will consider the argument dropped. New cards brought up in summary will not be considered; the third speech is a summary; refrain from making it a second rebuttal. What I'm looking for in summary is impact weighing and proving that your impact is more likely to happen, or greater in magnitude. In Final Focus, tell me your main points and what I should be voting on. Regardless of what happens, I will try and write as much feedback as possible.

With that being said, have fun, and good luck on your rounds!

Tech over truth.

I did policy.

Give a roadmap.

Signpost

Hey everyone,

I am an experienced 4-year PF debater from Sioux Falls Christian High School. I love judging a good round and overall just want to see you all grow as debaters and speakers.

As for the round, I expect all students to be professional and kind to one another. In regards to speaking, I'm totally fine with speed, but please make sure you project so I can actually hear what you have to say. Signposting is extremely important for my flow, so please make sure to signpost during Rebuttal and Summary. If you do a good job of signposting, I won't have any problems following you or your arguments. Don't ask for an off-the-clock road map, I will start the timer as soon as you begin speaking. You should use the time allotted for your speech and nothing more. In crossfire, please be polite and ask questions in an organized fashion. Dominating cross might seem like a benefit for your team, but if you just continue to interrupt your opponent and ask follow-up questions, you will lose speaker points. Also, be efficient in providing evidence to your opponents. They should only have to ask you for it once. Lastly, I like to use the flow, but I'm not voting solely on it. Not every card your opponent brings up needs a response, but you should still respond to their general argument. Remember to carry your responses throughout the round and use them to build momentum against your opponents' case.

Lastly, when it comes to making my decision I vote on two things:

1. Any contentions that aren't touched in rebuttal or summary by the opposing team carry the most weight in the round. If you don't respond to a point, I assume you agree with it.
2. Whichever side has the strongest impacts in the round that have not been de-linked or turned will most likely influence my decision. These impacts should be quantified by magnitude, timeframe, or probability. I rarely will vote on general impact statements like "benefits to the economy" or "helps human rights issues". If I am going to vote on those kinds of issues, I need specifics on what the impact is.

This ended up being much longer than I intended, so thanks for reading all of it, and good luck in your rounds!

I am an experienced Public Forum debater.

I am okay with fast speaking as long as you are speaking clearly. I will give high speaker points.

Unlike many other judges, I do listen to cross-fire, please be respectful, but do not shy away from clash. I am not very picky on cross-fire, I enjoy heated crossfires, (while also being respectful.)

I will believe what you are saying unless the information seems completely false. I may call for cards at the end of the debate.

Framework: If it is brought up by in the constructive and not mentioned until the final focus, I will not vote on it. If you are presenting framework, you need to show how your case fits the framework throughout the debate.

This does not apply as much to online debate, but, I will not accept post-round arguments or comments against your opponents. Examples of this are thing such as, telling me to call for your opponents card (s) because they are false, after the round. (I know it rarely happens, but it is frustrating)

Condensing on specific voters in summary and final focus is very important if you want me to vote for you. I also like signposting and roadmaps (as many judges do).

Weighing is also critical. I feel this is a fundamental debate skill in the first place but, please remember to weigh in-round.

I do not really have a preference on tech or truth, whichever is presented better, I will vote on.

Have fun!