I am a parent judge and I have done judging for PF debate for three years now. I would appreciate if the speakers go between normal pace and fast pace (not too fast) while speaking so I could follow the content and take notes. Also please remember to remain respectful (super important) during CX. I like to follow the guidelines for PF and also expect the participants to do so. I will not take notes / count the arguments that are done past the time limit.

As far the arguments go, I would like to see a convincing argument that justifies the impacts put forth. I weigh evidence and analytics equally. In rebuttal try to explain which of your opponent's contention you are going against instead of just making an argument. Final focus should not have new arguments. At the end, I make my decision based on what came through the flow and what arguments stand.

Good luck to all the contestants.

Hey folks,

I debated in public forum for West Bend High School in West Bend, WI for four years. During that time, I competed on the National circuit but primarily competed within Wisconsin circuit. I've found that the best way to approach debate is with an open mind receptive to learning new things about debate and understanding that debate will change over time. I feel I've gotten better at debate since becoming a judge than I ever was as a competitor now that I am able to view rounds with less bias towards winning.

The main goal of my work as a judge is to give you honest and constructive feedback. The best advice I received as a debater was that if you are being respectful, you are not just more likely to win a round but you are winning at life. Debate is a great place to bring out your competitive side, but please don't confuse having a competitive edge with being disrespectful.

Please keep in mind that while I did a few tournaments of Lincoln Douglas in high school and a little policy in college, I am fundamentally a PF debater and judge. Most of my paradigm is PF specific but many points hold across the board so it's still worth skimming if you are LD or Policy.

Logistics. What I like to see in a round-

Argumentative Split

I believe the second rebuttal should cover turns from the first rebuttal. It doesn't need to be a full 2-2 split but you must cover important responses (turns and disads, really, though it's generally wise to also hit terminal defense). Speaking second is incredibly advantageous, and it's a waste to not cover responses in the second rebuttal and makes the rest of the round messier.

Speed

If you're clear, I can flow speed. If you're too fast or incomprehensible, neither of us will be particularly happy. Luckily this trend has faded in Wisconsin, but there is still a silly trend floating around national circuit PF of people trying to "outspread" their opponents, whatever that means in PF. Fewer well-done arguments that I can understand will be rewarded more than a bunch of blippy stuff you just spew out. If you don't show me the link chain or make a clear impact, I may not reward you the argument so make everything clear.

Types of arguments

While this rarely tends to happen in Wisconsin PF because your coaches have rightfully cleared this from the pool, it is possible you may try to run things like theory and Ks. I hold that they are not done well in public forum. You can try to run them in front of me and I'll evaluate them fairly, but that doesn't mean I'll like them. Honestly, I usually don't. I think most theory run by PFers is pretty bad and makes me sad. It'll have to be done pretty well for you to both win and still get good speaker points. I really don't like it when teams run Ks or theory just to be squirrely, which many teams do. (Note: this is distinct from calling opponents out for participating in various -isms. Feel free to label offensive arguments as such, I am just less inclined to like random shells about very small issues that you read just to put your opponents on the train to Shooksville.) Running these arguments just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer them is exclusionary and it will make me not like you :-)

I really don't like when teams run squirrely things just to throw off their opponents. I will vote off the flow but I will probably be displeased doing it if I think you're being sketchy. Your points may suffer.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" (eg the military spending topic) please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring. I hate when people run super obscure advocacies that make zero sense just because they can. I will tend to interpret this as a plan and I don't accept plans in PF. Stick to interpreting the resolution and the probability of your impacts occurring.

Dates

For the love of god please read them. And names too while you are at it. Definition debates and date debates make me want to quit judging but still read them both.

Evidence

I can't believe I have to say this, but please represent evidence honestly. I'm not going to punish you for paraphrasing but I do expect you to stay true to what the evidence is saying if you choose to do so. It will severely injure your credibility if I catch you misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable. If you find your opponent doing this *ever* (regardless of who is judging) call them out. If evidence sounds too good to be true, call the card. It might win you a round. It's won me a handful.

Please don't do "debater math" or over-extrapolate the results and numbers in studies. It's often unethical and usually just uneducational and inaccurate. Wrong. Bad. Pls don't.

You should know where your evidence is. I won't start immediately running your prep when opponents want you to find some evidence because I think that's silly, but if you start taking more than a minute or so I will.

I know paraphrasing is not against the rules, so I will allow it, but I prefer you actually read from your evidence. Bracketing in your card is really uncool. The one exception, I guess, would be clarifying a qual or something. For example, if your card says "Claus continues" and you add "[world-traveler and gift delivery expert Santa] Claus continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Summary and Final Focus

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like when teams collapse well in these speeches. For the love of god, don't go for everything. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, WEIGH.

Not Being a Jerk

Be funny, be witty, but don't be rude. Don't snap at your opponent, talk down to them, or attack them. Jokes and puns are welcome, but trying too hard is less so.

I have noticed there is a trend emerging in public forum. To put it simply, this trend involves being a massive jerk to your opponent in cross. While I will not automatically drop you for this, I am not afraid to tank your speaks. Be nice and we will all be happy, be mean and nobody will be happy. :-)

Prep

Keep track of it. I am far too lazy to do it for you. And I don't always remember to click that lil button that makes the timer go beep so don't make me look bad, time yourself.

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

I could not care less if you enter the room or do the flip before I get there. Go ahead, if you want to.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/etc to be comfortable, I really don't care, and I won't dock you for it.

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, you might want to strike me. Unless I am sobbing from the sheer beauty of whatever earth-shattering revelations your speeches gave me I don't intend on giving you a thirty. 27 is supposed to be average, and point fairy-ism is bad norms. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27-28.5 range. (Note: I've gotten more liberal with this over time but I think it's a fair disclaimer).

If you show me photos of dogs, I'll give you a 30. Just kidding. No I won't. But you can do it anyways.

Experience: I debated PF all four years of high school on the local and national level.

Speed: I'm good with PF speeds, but LD/Policy level spreading will lose me.

Jargon: Please use when appropriate (i.e. not constantly).

Time: You have a five second grace period -- if you go over, I'll stop flowing. I'll be timing as well, but please time yourself so that the round can go smoother.

I expect extensions through every speech except first rebuttal. If it isn't extended through summary, I will not vote on it at the end of the round. Also, please extend both arguments and evidence (don't just list authors/cards). It is fine (encouraged!) to collapse in summary. Turns and framework have to be extended as well.

Please do your own weighing! This can be meta-weighing (why your weighing mechanism matters more than the other teams), or just weighing arguments. If you don't tell me why your arguments are more important, I'll have to do my own weighing, which you might not necessarily like. Similarly, with blocks and responses, tell me why I should prefer one piece of evidence or argument over another one: don't just read them over and over.

Also, anything said in cross is binding: in general, please don't pretend that you said something you didn't, or that you didn't say something you did, etc etc. SIGNPOST please.

Other Stuff: Please be polite and civil in round, and please don't be sexist, ableist, racist, etc (I will dock many many speaker points, assuming I don't auto-drop you). Having debated myself, catty/rude rounds tend to be unpleasant for everyone involved, so try to make this as good of an educational experience as you can! ( ᵘ ꒳ ᵘ ✼)

General Stuff:

Experience: I debated for three years in Policy Debate for Neenah High School (WI) and I have been judging LD, PF, and Policy since I graduated.

Paradigm: Tabs, unless there's no F/W in which case I default to Util. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. Tech/Truth.

Timing: I will be timing prep, cross and rounds, but I expect you to time yourself. I will let you know when you are going over.

Pacing: I am very comfortable with speed but speaking fast should not make you incomprehensible. Both myself and your opponent should be able to hear tags, warrants, and analytical arguments.

General:

- Make sure to stay organized — clear roadmaps and signposting is really helpful with making a clear and concise argument.

PF

Extensions: Please extend arguments, not just authors. Anything not extended in summary won't factor into my decision at end of round except defense extended from first rebuttal to first final focus

Rebuttal: Turns that aren't answered in second rebuttal are de facto dropped. Second rebuttal doesn't need to answer weighting that's in the first rebuttal, it can wait until second summary.

Weighing: Weighing is good, it is the first thing I will vote on. Scope means nothing without magnitude.

Cross: Statements made in cross are not inherently binding.

Policy/LD:

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I will vote for anything well-run. You need a clear ROB so I know what I’m voting for at the end of the round. Come into the round prepared for T and arguments that the K is not compelling within the debate framework.

CPs: I have no problem with a CP, but they require a clear net benefit over the affirmative plan and there should be a good defense on a permutation if one is argued by the affirmative.

T: Topicality can be a voter, but it requires standards and voters as well as a clear violation of in round abuse.

Ks: Kritiks are good when they have a proper link chain, impact and alt. Make sure that if you choose to run a Kritik, you understand what the alt is and can explain how the alt solves.

Theory: I am comfortable with high level theory debates. If you choose to make theory arguments, make sure you focus on arguing how your interpretation is better than your opponent and argue comparative offense calculus.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, my ballot, or want to include me in email chains (please do), my email is willclark813@outlook.com

I debated in Public Forum for 4 years at Brookfield East High School in Wisconsin. I have more specifics below, but in general, signpost, extend your arguments, and weigh. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at the start of the round.

Speed: I am alright with speed, but if I cannot understand what you are saying, then I will not be able to flow everything.

Signpost: Please tell me what link, impact, or response you are attacking when making responses. Even if you are making amazing responses, if you are jumping around a lot, I may not understand what you are responding to right away. Similarly, follow a logical order in your speeches. Address the entirety of one issue before moving to the next.

Extensions: If you do not extend an argument during summary, then I will not consider that argument if you bring it up in final focus.

Weighing: Please make sure to weigh impacts. By doing so, you are telling me why you should win the round. If you do not, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Cross-X: Do not be rude or overbearing during cross-x. While I welcome you to apply pressure to your opponents through your questions, be courteous when doing so and allow your opponents to ask questions as well. Also, I will listen to but will not flow cross-x. If anything important is conceded, it should be brought up in the following speech.

Off-time roadmaps: I am fine with and encourage a brief off-time roadmap. These should just be telling me the order of your speech (ex: opponent then own case, voters, etc.) and should not go into any of the details.

Arguments: As long as your arguments are properly warranted and within the scope of the resolution, I will generally buy any argument.

Once again, if your are confused or need clarification, please ask before the round. Good luck and happy debating!

St. Ambrose Academy judge. No high school debate experience. I typically judge several tournaments during the year and the state tournament.

Students should speak at a speed which allows them to distinctly enunciate in order to be completely understood. If I can not understand, I will ask the student to slow down.

I prefer arguments over style.

Final focus is to reiterate your case by succinctly demonstrating your "wins" during the debate.

Arguments do not need to be extended if well presented.

Analytics over evidence.

I prefer to hear debates that are true to the public forum format, convincing the public based on the merit of the arguments.

J. Hulsey - Paradigm

1. What school(s) are you affiliated with?

a. Middleton Highschool, Middleton, WI

2. Were you a competitor when in school?

a. No

3. How often do you judge?

a. 2022 will be my first experience judging a debate.

4. How fast can students speak during speeches?

a. A slower speaking pace would be preferred.

5. If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them?

a. Yes

Policy Debate:

1. List types of arguments you do or do not prefer to listen to/evaluate. For example, do you like disadvantages? Kritiks? Topicality?

a. No preference at this time given this will be my first experience judging a debate.

2. List stylistic items you like or do not like to see. For example, do you like debaters that do line-by-line (i.e. respond to arguments in the order they were presented)?

a. The preference would be for argument responses to follow the same order as originally presented.

PF Debate:

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

a. Arguments are the priority for me, with style secondary.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round?

a. A summary of the argument.

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?

a. It seems important for a team to cover a key argument in the summary speech if the argument is perceived by the team to have strategic importance to winning the debate.

4. Will you vote on arguments raised in the crossfire?

a. Perhaps, not ruling it out.

5. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally?

a. Equally

I am a parent judge affiliated with Middleton High School. I have been judging for the past three years. It's okay to speak fast but please make sure you are speaking clearly. Though style has some weightage, I prefer argument over style. Do not use too much jargon and don't run theory. If you brought something up in crossfire and want it to be considered in the round, please bring it up in subsequent speeches. Lay the round out VERY clearly for me, and do not make me do the weighing. Please collapse near the end of the round, I don't want to see everything you said in your constructive unless it is cleanly flowing through in Final Focus. Be nice to each other and have fun!

Hi everyone, my name is Chanel Kreuser. I did PF debate at West Bend all four years of high school, and I occasionally did congress. I was decently successful and attended a few national competitions. I graduated in 2020, and I now attend MSOE.

I talked quite fast in debate, so don't worry about that, however, I do not join in on link chains or look at your blocks. I shouldn't need to to make a decision. Everything I need to know about why you should win should be in your speeches.

Off time road maps are always good.

I do not flow cross fire, if you believe something important was brought up, bring it up in your next speech.

I love a good summary speech, especially if your team is going second. To me, it is necessary that you pull any important arguments through every speech. If it was brought up in rebuttal, but not summary, then I'll drop that argument. If it was not brought up in your constructive and summary but not your rebuttal, it will not hold much weight in the round for me.

I like to hear voters in your final focus. It makes it much easier to know what I should be voting on and why your team should win.

Please be polite and respectful in the round, it makes your team look more intelligent. Have fun and good luck! (:

Speaking

1. How fast can students speak during speeches?

I don't have any preference for how fast a student can speak if it is clear and understandable.

2. If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them?

Yes, I will let the student know by telling the student when they speak FIRST time in the debate.

Evaluating the Round

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

I don't have any preference but I will be looking for a combination of good arguments and style.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round?

I believe final focus plays an important role in debate as this provides the last opportunity for students to support why their case is better focusing on analytics, evidence and highlighting important information based on previous rounds of debate.

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?

I prefer summary speeches.

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

I would weigh them equally.

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 will be judging based on how debater speak with evidence and analytics information whether they support the case or opposing the opponent's case within the debate topic. I will be giving importance to how well a team did each round.

I want students to make sure they don't do the following actions. Any of this action may result in reduction in speaker points and negatively impact team win.

1. No disrespectable actions against opponents.

2. No unnecessary arguments not related to debate topic

3. No interruptions while someone speaking

4. Keep your mic muted all the time unless you are speaking.

I am a parent judge affiliated with Middleton High School.

No, I do not have any public forum debate experience in USA, however, have had some debates in India.

This is my first time judging - 01/16/2022, this will be a learning experience for me too.

Please speak at a moderate speed, anything that isn't heard won't be flowed.

I have no argumentative preferences as of right now, but please present arguments that are properly explained.

During the final focus, I will look for the team that is able to substantiate and convince me with their arguments.

If a team plans to win a debate, they must extend points all throughout the debate, but I will be specifically looking for summary extensions.

I weigh every argument equally as long as they are presented properly.

Please try to refrain from bringing up progressive arguments, such as kritics as they might not be completely understood.

Have a positive attitude and lots of enthusiasm. Be graceful to the opponents.

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.

I've debated in high school and know the workings of debate.

Cases-

I want cases with cohesive arguments that make it clear to me what your arguments , warranting, and impacts are. Framework is accepted as long as it is not abusive. Theory that is used appropriately will be accepted but if it is used as a means to be abusive or to guarantee an "easy" win, I will disregard your entire case. (If an opponent paraphrases but is able to provide evidence in a timely manner I will not even consider paraphrase theory in the round). I prefer quality over quantity so bombarding arguments will not work unless they are strong and clear.

Speeches-

I can handle speed as I have debated before but if you use speed as a way to confuse your opponents (speaking super fast/slurred) I will lower your speaker points. Sign-post makes my flowing easier and your speech clearer so I highly recommend it. Weighing is something I want to see in almost all speeches. Give me a reason to vote for you and why I should believe it.

Speaker Points-

I award high speaker points to anyone who gives a clear speech. If you are rude, uncivil, spreading to cause confusion, or promoting harmful behavior I will drop your points significantly.

Evidence Sharing-

I would prefer if an email chain was created before the beginning of round with my email (ashlynnarman.email@gmail.com) added on to it. If you take too long to find a card in order to create more prep time I will call you out on it. Do not waste my time or your opponent's.

With all that being said, make sure this a fun round for everyone in your room :)

This will be my first ever judging experience. I am therefore counting on you to help me fulfill my judging responsibilities successfully. It will help me judge the debate effectively if your arguments and impacts are clearly stated and closely aligned with the resolution. It will be easy for me to weigh if there is a sound reasoning in your argumentation and if your impacts logically follow your arguments, and if both are clearly linked to the resolution.

Similarly, it will be very helpful if you systematically and concisely organize your rebuttals with clear signposting, specifying what you are refuting.

Speed reading would make my task difficult and therefore I would appreciate it if you could keep a conversational pace during speeches.

I look forward to judging an excellent debate! Best of luck!

I believe debate is great activity. I debated policy debate in high school for four years at the national level.

Here's a few things about how I think about the debate.

1. I don't flow cross examination but I flow the rest of the debate. I will bring statements from cross x and grand cross if you ask me to in the speeches. (I do listen to it.)

2. I may ask for evidence after the round.

3. I am open to any approach (speed, kritiques, etc.) as long as you can define it.

4. A dropped argument is a won argument. I then evaluate it against the rest of the arguments.

5. The resolution needs to fairly divide ground between the aff/neg or Pro/Con). Other than that, I am open to any other theory.

6. You should enjoy the activity!

I am a new parent judge. I did Parliamentary debate in college and policy debate and forensics in high school, and now work as an attorney. I prefer a speed and style of delivery that would be accessible and persuasive to a broad audience. I appreciate sound reasoning, clear organization, effective use of evidence, and responsiveness to the other side’s arguments.

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a number of years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash. critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a crit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision I will ask for it. I care about logic and the strength of link chains. The quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate. A dropped argument will not hold. The speed arguments are delivered is only an issue when words become garbled and unintelligible. Thus, be very careful spreading if you chose that method. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you. It is easier for me to follow a debate when I can see the debaters. Have fun and respect the art of debate!

Hello my name is Aananya. I did PF 4 years in high school and debated nationally in NCFLs and NSDAs.

PF- I am a flow judge and I appreciate line by line rebuttal. I like to see clash between cases, tell me why your case is better than your opponent. Start to weigh in summary and begin constructing voters for your partner to talk about in final focus. Please note if you bring up anything new during final focus I will not flow it.

LD- I do not know much about LD but I understand how LD works. I would like to know why you win, so a portion of your speeches should be explaining why you win so I do not have to make my own conclusion.

Speed- I am fine with speed but if you start spreading, remember the faster you talk the less I can write down.

Cross X- I do not flow cross but if you want me write something down, let me know

If you have any questions let me know before the round.

Please be civil with each other.

Hello Debaters!

My name is Remington Schieffer and I went to Mukwonago High School for four years of policy 4 person and switch side debate. I thoroughly enjoyed my peers and the learning experience debate has given me, and I look forward to working with you in your round and adding to your experiences in competition. I cannot wait to participate in helping you achieve success.

Just like how everyone considers themselves a good driver, I consider my judge philosophies to be progressive and fair. I try really hard to see the balance between strategy and common sense - if you decide to put out fires in the FireCorps by exploring the inner struggle the fire is facing and advocating for the psychological solution of the turmoil (talking to fires nicely), I think you will have a tough time earning a ballot from me in the round. That doesn't mean you can be lazy and ignore nonsensical arguments in the round.

DOs and DON'Ts:

DO thoroughly explain the argument: I do no work for you on the ballot. I do not cross apply concepts unless you tell me where to. I do not extend your arguments unless you tell me to. I do not write one thing on my flow unless you tell me to. Nothing goes on the ballot that does not go on the flow.

DON'T use your opponent's confusion as a main strategy: If your support is that care bears will come down from their fluffy kingdom and melt away all of the world's problems, you have evidence written by someone who has a PhD that supports this, and your opponents mishandle the argument based on confusion, you do not win the round without extending your arguments into rebuttal, explaining the impacts of the plan, and being cooperative in cross examination.

DO help your opponent in the round: Let them see a copy of your resolution, evidence, sources. We are hear to learn and improve ourselves through competitive debate. If you want to present and not cooperate, go into politics. Here, we help one another learn more about ourselves, the world, and how it works.

DON'T expect me to understand your technological, (or economical, theoretical, social, psychological, or other scientific) jargon: I consider myself halfway intelligent, and there is a lot out there I do no yet know. If you're doing your job right, I will be learning from you in the round! So will your opponent! THAT IS THE GOAL OF THIS ACTIVITY!

DO make excellent use of prep time: I believe in prep time if its allowed, but tournaments cannot dawdle, we must be quick and precise.

DON'T use common sentence interrupters or fillers because you have not practiced how to speak: I do not like hearing "um", "uh", "er", "ah", "basically", "literally", "really", or other filler words because you cannot slow down, and speak intelligently. This is an oratory activity, and some polish should be provided to your presentation. Pay attention to this one only if speaker points are important to you.

*Side note* I believe that speaker points reflect speaking capability, and the ballot reflects argumentation and strategy. If you read at 420+ words per minute, your speaks will not be as good as your polished, 120 words per minute partner, or god forbid your opponents. Wow my ears for speaks, wow my brain for ballot.

As long as you and your opponents agree, I'm cool with whatever. I will only intervene if there is a heavy disagreement before the round starts, and no compromise will be met.

My goal as the judge is to make sure there is a winner, no one kills one another, and the round starts/ends on time. It is the debater's job to provide me content to vote on and craft the round.

Hello competitors! I'm a new parent judge and I am excited to see you all debate. Please refrain from speaking fast and spreading. Make sure to speak clearly and slowly and emphasize important parts. Make your arguments very clear especially if you think it’s important in the round.

As for speaker points, I’ll award highly to speakers who are confident and have good strategy but deduct for being overly aggressive. An easy way to lose speaker points is to yell at your opponent.

Be polite and respectful to everyone. Most importantly, have fun!

Schools judged for: Marquette University High School, Rufus King High School, Ronald Reagan College Prep High School

Did not compete in high school

Style of debate judged: Lincoln Douglas (Often), Public Forum (Often), Novice Policy (3-4 times)

Speaking Speed: Students may go as fast or slow as they would like as long as their points can be easily heard and understood. If a crowd of people would be unable to understand you, you are speaking too fast.

Framework: I like a solid framework and a clear understood framework. Please make sure your value, value criterion, and contentions flow with you debate. I expect to see a value and value criterion in your constructive.

Reading plans, counterplans, or Kritiks are acceptable to debate.

Most important to a win: Strong framework, cross-ex to be able to defend and poke holes in the other debates framework, and strong rebuttal outlining your points.

I started debating in 1998, competing in Policy Debate through High School and College on a scholarship. My personal debate highlights include state champion (2001), successful trips to both NSDA (formerly NFL) and CEDA Nationals, speaker award at the Pan-Pacific Debate Championship (South Korea, 2003). I have served as a debate camp counselor (Whitman College; Bellingham Debate Cooperative at WWU) and as a paid debate evidence contributor for West Coast Publishing. I have coached and judged Policy, LD and Public Forum in the many years since then.

You may put me in a specific paradigm via your argumentation in the round. In the absence of this, I will default to my own style of policymaking, which is to compare the world of the aff (pro) vs the world of the neg (con) and vote for the "world" that solves more/bigger problems than it creates.

I prefer impacted arguments with "even if..." type analysis. Chances are you aren't winning everything in the round, so this helps me as a judge understand how you'd like me to weigh competing arguments.

On a sidenote, please be ready to begin your speech when you stop prep time and/or run out of it. If you tell me to end prep time (or run out of it) and after a reasonable amount of time have not actually started your speech, I will start your speech time so please be prompt.

I am a PF judge for Fort Atkinson, although I have judged policy in the past. I judged policy from a traditional policy-maker position and tend to prefer cases that are on-topic and had a course of action that I could take. While we are not looking for a plan from Public Forum debaters, arguing the topic directly plays right into my preferences, so it will be tough for PF debaters to go wrong with me.

Speed should not be an issue for public forum debaters, however I know that some students compete in several formats. Having judged policy in the past, I am comfortable with a novice-to-varsity level of speed, however, if I think that you are speaking too quickly for a public forum setting, I will say "clear" up to 3 times. If you speed up again, I will merely start to take off speaker points. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot flow the debate (which should never happen in PF; this isn't policy!), that will simply be to the detriment of your case. I will not judge what I cannot flow.

I judge primarily base on the arguments/analytics that are presented in the round. I feel that speaker points are best suited to reward debaters for style. In other words, while arguments, facts, and logical deductions are the bread and butter of any debate, if you make it look good or convince me that you know your case backward and forward, that will be reflected in speaker points.

If you are arguing from a moral high ground, please be sure to emphasize that I should be considering moral obligations before considering other aspects (such as utilitarianism) and why. For example, I need something in your arguments telling me why I should value human lives above, say, dollars and cents, but from there on, this can be referred back to as a moral imperative without having to re-argue the original moral argument. Just be sure to include something in your summary or final focus that mentions that I should vote based on moral obligation above all other considerations.

When you are wrapping up the debate, please indicate clearly which arguments you think are the most important for me to consider and why. If there are flaws in the opposing argument, or if you want to toss some analytics, I am fine with this. Analytics are the application of logic to draw a conclusion based on the evidence at hand and they indicate to me that you've been seriously considering the side of the argument that you are presenting.

On my ballot, I try to indicate areas of improvement for everyone along with what was done well. If I indicate a mispronunciation, it is only to improve your debate for the next round, not to embarrass you. While a large vocabulary is desirable, nobody can claim to be perfectly familiar with every single word. English is far too large of a language and it can be terribly inconsistent.

You should also know that I am an Air Force Brat. I grew up on an Air Force Base, near a naval station, that housed Navy personnel and Marines. I am familiar with military equipment of various kinds, how they function, and the role they play in current and past military strategies. Tactical maneuvering for military and political advantage are not unknown to me and I have a good grasp of recent conflicts and their history. Please don't quote conflicts and dates unless you are certain because I will not find it convincing if it's incorrect.