About me:
- I use He/Him pronouns
- email (for email chains, etc.): kalinahmad@gmail.com
- 2 years of policy debate experience, currently a British Parliamentary debater at UW Madison

Public Forum Paradigm:
First, it should be noted that I do not have any experience debating in PF. Thus, I will not necessarily know niche rules and theory arguments specific to the format, so I would advise that you not rely on those. I enjoy hearing unconventional arguments, however - so long as you do the work to explain them and show that they are relevant. PF was made to be judged by the average person, so write niche arguments in a way that would make sense to someone uninitiated.
In rounds without that kind of argument, I'll generally vote based on impact analysis. I typically find myself defaulting to a somewhat deontological mindset, but I would always prefer to see arguments on impact framing in round as opposed to relying my personal biases.
Despite being a former policy debater, I do not think speed is a good thing in debate - especially not in PF. The speaking speed I would prefer to hear would be a little faster than normal speaking speed. And, one last thing that really shouldn't need to be said - don't be rude in round. I don't want to hear insults, nor language that is harmful to minorities.

Public Forum:

Parent judging with minimal experience — be understanding and adapt to that. That means going slower, using logical arguments that don’t follow crazy reasoning, not using debate jargon, and being respectful in round. I’ll try to make the best decision possible based off the importance and weighing to arguments and you're reasoning for why I should vote for you. Remember, the clearer you are, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

Quick note: for cross x, I will listen but not flow. If you want me to note something, mention it in the next speech.

Congress:

Make your argumentation and impacts very clear. Reference other people in the round - clash is good!

I am a debate coach who has judged all types of debate for nearly 30 years. In recent years, I have focused mainly on public forum and occasionally Lincoln Douglas.

When judging public forum, I adopt the point of view of someone who is conversant in basic terminology and concepts but without any preconceived opinions on the merits of the resolution. The team that is more effective in using evidence and argumentation to convince me that their side should prevail gets the win.

I value clarity and precision in argumentation. While I can flow and comprehend more rapid delivery (I have coached policy), I think that public forum is not well suited to speed. If you are speaking rapidly because there is a lot you really need to cover, I am ok with that. If you are speaking rapidly because you feel it will confuse the other team, I will be annoyed. If you are speaking rapidly because you think it will impress me, it will not.

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?

The summary is an important speech because it tells me how your side sees the entire round now that constructives and rebuttals are on the flow. The final focus is best spent weighing the round and telling me why your side prevails.

Crossfires are not speeches, so anything from a crossfire that you want on the flow must still be mentioned in a subsequent speech. However, I listen carefully to all crossfires, so I will be aware of whether their contents are being accurately characterized.

In Lincoln-Douglas, I prefer clarity and quality over speed and quantity. I appreciate direct refutation and line by line analysis. My preference is for a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of the resolution. If given a choice, I would like a round that had fewer but better arguments rather than a spread of arguments that all lack decent development.

I do value the traditional role of LD as the more philosophical type of debate, and the value and value criterion play a unique and helpful role in this. However, I am mindful of the fact that not all resolutions lend themselves to this tradition as well as others do, so I am ok with making adjustments accordingly. If I don't feel I've been given clear reasons why I should vote the way you want me to, I will tend to default to a traditional approach, so having the value and value criterion in place still serves a purpose.

Evidence is important in LD to back up your basic claims, but I'd rather have you give me a couple great cards along with excellent analysis then many cards without it.

In your last speech, please make it very clear to me why I should be convinced by what is on the flow to vote for your side.

I look forward to hearing you debate!

My debate background is in Parliamentary Debate in a program strongly influenced by policy debate. What I look for is clear structure and sound arguments, avoiding fallacies, and using credible evidence to support claims.

In round, being able to compare and evaluate evidence and to impact arguments to the round. Tell me why your argument matters.

Another key element of a good debate is CLASH. Attack and defend your arguments, impact them to the criteria and value, tell me which one should be weighted the most in my evaluation of the round and why.

Be nice and have fun!

PF Debate Judge Paradigm

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Enter names of schools you coach for, judge for, etc.

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? Enter type of debate (LD, PF, Policy) and number of years. Otherwise, put N/A.

How often do you judge public forum debate? Can say every weekend, few times a year, etc.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? no

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Arguments, but it is meant to be a lay style of delivery

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

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? If you think it is your winning argument, extend it and also make it a voter.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Evidence is to support arguments,

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.

If you make a claim, link it to the res/argument made, and warrant why it applies. Support your claims with reasoning and evidence. The stronger it is, the more I can weigh it.

I am a previous PF debater so the structure and language is all familiar to me. If you are going to speak fast, you must enunciate so I can keep up with you, but otherwise it's not a problem!

1. The most important thing in a round is being respectful, please make the debate enjoyable for everyone!

2. I don't flow cross, but I am listening. I want to hear impactful questions but I also need you to carry that in your speeches.

3. Good weighing is something I really look for. If you tell me why I should vote for you instead of your opponent with a decent line of reasoning, there's a very good chance that I will listen to you. Especially in PF, use summary for this. In LD, all rebuttals should have weighing analysis.

4. Always have clear sources and links for all of your evidence. It will reflect poorly on you if your opponent calls for a card and you can't pull it up. I will also call for cards if I didn't fully understand the point, so be ready for it.

7. I love a clean flow so signposting is very important and that's generally what I consider most when giving out speaker points.

8. If your framework is important to your case, don't just tell me what it is, tell me why I should prefer it compared to your opponent's. Especially in LD, frame the debate well and I will follow your lead. It should also connect seamlessly with the remainder of your case.

9. Comparative analysis is important when clash occurs. Don't continue to extend evidence without telling me why it should remain on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before or after debating! I truly enjoy judging so I hope we can all have a good round :)

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.

I am a parent judge and have judged a few times in the past.

I DO NOT HANDLE SPEED. If you are reading to fast or do not speak clearly I can’t understand.

Time your own prep and speeches.

I don't have a particular preference on how you debate. Just follow the guideline and assume I know nothing about the topic that you are debating on.

Explain why your case is better than your opponents, and why you should win the round over them.

**If you run any sort of K or theory with me as your judge it is incredibly unlikely I will vote for you, I have never met a team that has run a K well with a lay judge

Be professional and Happy debating.

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.

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! (:

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.

Background:

I competed in Public Forum and Congressional Debate in high school.

Rebuttal:

I want to see front lining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. Whether that's a 2-2 split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum is addressing terminal defense and turns.

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary. Please collapse your arguments and give me voters.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of the link, clarity of impact, meta-weighing, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal). This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I wanna see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I don't really understand these so please caution.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly. As far as citations in case, I wanna hear dates and author qualifications.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I wanna know where you are on the flow, and I want you to number your responses. You do not want me to think you under-covered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: While I debated for four years and I am comfortable with some level of speed, I really prefer average speaking speed and will not work to understand your arguments unless they are clear.

BACKGROUND

I’ve coached Public Forum debate for 5 years. I debated policy in high school and college, as well as coaching policy at the high school level for a couple of years.

PARADIGM

I’m mostly a tabula rasa judge, therefore the following are only preferences.

ARGUMENT

I flow. Speed isn’t an issue, but you must be clear. I’m suspicious of long link chains. I enjoy theory in debate, but please develop your arguments.

Please don’t make me weigh the argument for you. Telling me that your contention outweighs because you say it does or that you save 30 million lives (when the one card you use says a larger process than your proposal may affect 30 million people) forces me to enter the debate. I don’t want to do that. Thus, I am sensitive to probability arguments.

I like topicality arguments, but few public forum debaters know how to make them because they rarely do. Be careful here.

Over the years, debaters who go line by line as opposed to big argument dumps tend to win more with me.

Extend defense in summary

EVIDENCE

Evidence quality really matters to me. Please don’t overclaim it. I’m sympathetic to evidence indicts and suspicious of evidence summaries.

Do not use ellipses to delete large amounts of evidence. If I think you’ve misinterpreted a card, I will call for it, even if your opponents don’t.

I want to hear the source first, before the evidence. Please be clear as to when the card ends and when you begin.

CROSSFIRE

I don’t flow crossfire and don’t vote on it unless it is accurately presented and developed in speech. As such, I do listen carefully to crossfire.

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.

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.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Hi, my name is Elaine Sun. I debated PF for three years in high school so I will have a general idea of what you are talking about. However, I am not too familiar with this resolution.

I am a flow judge and like to see a line-by-line rebuttal. You should start weighing in summary and begin constructing votes for your partner to elaborate on in final focus. I am fine with speed, but I will only write down what I can understand. Please be nice to each other! :)

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.