Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a pretty frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind.
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/K Affs-I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

I'm a former policy debater and judged it throughout college and after. I'm happily returning to judging after an absence. LD is new for me in 2023.

IN GENERAL:

I aim to adjudicate based on what you present to me (i.e., tabula rasa), but I'm not partial to kritik about debate itself; that seems like changing the rules of the game mid-play to me. Counterplans are fine, but so are generic DAs; just give me vigorous clash with whatever you have. I love to hear analysis and rationale.

As far as jargon goes, I prefer you to approach it like you would citations for publication: i.e., give me the full title/headline/name upon first mention, then abbreviate/slang it for the rest of the time. For instance: "Capitalism Kritik" becomes "Cap-K", but "IDF" could be either "Israel Defense Forces," "Insurance Development Forum," "International Diabetes Foundation," "International Dairy Foundation," "Immune Deficiency Foundation," and so on—hence why I'd like the terms before abbreviation. I've been around a long time and have a head full of these things, so please help a girl out.

I flow every speech thoroughly—including CX—so I appreciate organization and signposting a lot, even if it's as brief as, "I'm starting with DAs, then I'm going case."

I'm fine with spreading, as long as you are able to enunciate well; speed comes with preparedness. If you become nigh intelligible, I'll probably wave my hand in a "slow down" motion and pull a weird face. Incorrect pronunciation without qualifying reason [I'm not referring to dialect or folks with a primary language other than English, but more the "nuclear vs nuculer" variety] is a pet peeve, but not basis for judgment; it just makes me think you haven't spent enough time with your cards. Please: learn how to pronounce the names of the people and places in your cards! Personal names can be hard and cause you to stumble in your speech (and in turn lose your place), while country names you should be familiar with already (for the most part).

I want you to use your rebuttals to sum up why I should vote for you, to give me your analysis of the entire round and why your side has clearly proven superior in this argument. I don't want to be pummeled with, "This is a voter! And this is a voter! You must vote XYZ! And you must vote XYZ!" over and over, ad nauseum. That does nothing to convince me. I'll decide what is a voter; you just give me explanation of why that particular point is so important to the debate and your interpretation is the correct one.

Also, not every single piece of evidence you have—addressed by the other side or not—is a voter. Please don't use them as blunt instruments to hammer at me. Evidence backs up your argument; if the argument isn't sound to begin with, that evidence is just going to dangle in space—not carry the entire round (in most cases). I don't want to you to waste your precious rebuttal time repeating the empty phrase, "This card is a voter! This card is a voter, too!" Sure, tell me they've dropped arguments or have acccepted your framework, or even that your card is more recent or from a more reputable source. But if the other side has dismantled your entire case, why should I care if they didn't touch that extra card sitting under your supposed impacts? That will not win the round. Rationale as to why that one dropped card is a linchpin for the entire argument might.

I don't tolerate rudeness. This is an exciting, educational activity that is meant to help everyone become more confident public speakers, dogged researchers, constructive verbal combatants, and robust thinkers. If you demean, mock, get snippy, or cop an attitude with your opponent, I will dock speaker points and may weigh against you, depending upon severity of offense.

FEEDBACK: I don't give much verbal feedback aside from disclosing whom I find for; I'm too busy weighing my flow and typing up the ballot. I may not have all the reasons for decision sorted into complete, deliverable rationale yet. It's not meant to be a slight or intimidating—I just have a lot to convey and not much time to do it. I will give brief insight into why I voted the way I did when judging online, but it won't be extensive for the prior reasons. I believe it's my duty to provide you with a thorough, written record of the round, which will be more reliable for future reference than recollecting a quick discussion.

POLICY SPECIFIC: During CX, you should be able to answer questions directed to you; an interjection by your partner is fine, but they are not the one under CX so I expect you to pick up the burden. Negs, If you want to run more than one T argument, fine—but make sure you're actually following through and *debating* them, not using them as verbal caltrops tossed in front of the Aff and abandoned like chaff. Don't waste our time, please.