Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

School Affiliation: Rufus King HS

Debate Experience: 4 years of Public Forum Debate and 1 year of Congress on both local and national circuits. Tournament judge between 2019 and now. I have judged PF, LD and Congress.

Email: morgan.nicolesc@gmail.com

Until now, I have not judged this season. Please be mindful of this.

Other Notes:

1. Speed- Maintain a moderate speed throughout the round. I can effectively flow faster speech, but I suggest speaking slower if you want me to pick up on more intricate arguments. If you are speaking too fast, I will stop flowing. I will unmute myself if you become incoherent, and tell you ‘clear’.

2. Tech- In case there are lags or audio glitches, you may want to speak lower and enunciate more clearly, especially if you have a lot of analytics in your case.

3. Clash- Clash is great! Be effective in connecting the dots. This includes adequate extensions of arguments, turns, etc. If you plan to win the debate on a key argument, it should be mentioned in both the rebuttal and summary speeches.

4. CX- I do typically flow CX , but that doesn’t mean that new arguments can be presented without follow-up in the next speech. If it is not referenced and expanded, I will not weigh it.

5. Final Focus- Do not reference new arguments in the final focus. That time is used to clarify voters explicitly, and summarize the debate. Why do you win?

6. Signposting and Roadmaps- Both are important!! Saying that “I’m gonna go pro and then con” is incorrect and insufficient.

7. Analytics- I weigh evidence or analytics, but I do evaluate analytics that prove to be warranted and uniquely fit for the argument at hand.

8. Style- While style, jargon, etc. are important factors of the debate, they will be ineffective without substantive arguments. Demonstrate a clear understanding of your own material and the correct usage of terms. Do not assume that I know the nuances of your argument, even if that may be true.

9. Logic- If you are claiming that an argument ‘ isn’t fair’, ‘doesn’t make sense’, or ‘doesn’t apply to the debate’, give me a reason! None of these statements will hold any weight without clear explanation and reasoning.

10. Observations- I do take observations at face value, if the other side has not offered an alternative or suggested why I shouldn’t. Keep this in mind.

11. Equity- I will evaluate all arguments mentioned, provided that they are not rude, personally offensive to other debaters or derogatory. Any evidence of such arguments will result in docked speaker points.

In general, my number one rule is this: DO NOT LEAVE ME TO INTERPRET THINGS ON MY OWN! If I have to draw my own conclusions about your arguments, your voters are likely lost.

I was a PF debater in high school, have been judging for years and have recently started coaching.

PF: I am a flow judge and like to see a clean line-by-line in rebuttal. Be sure you are not only responding to the argument your opponents' present but also the impact. Tell me why they can't access their impact in rebuttal. In summary, you should begin tying up any loose ends and begin to weigh. Tell me why your opponents can't access their impacts or why your impacts are bigger and better. Lives are a good default impact that is easy to compare. Final focus should be almost entirely voters. Give me 2 or 3 good reasons why I should vote for you. Don't make final focus a mini rebuttal. A good final focus does go over the entire round or every argument. Only focus on what you think you're winning. In terms of framework, unless one is proposed by either team I will default to util. In summary and final focus, tell me how your arguments/impacts align with the framework and why your opponents aren't meeting the framework.

LD: I have less experience in LD but will be able to follow more complex arguments. Be sure to talk about impacts explicitly and how they align to your value and criterion. Focus on the topic at hand, not the nature of debate or how your opponent is debating, except if they are being discriminatory. I am a flow judge through and through. Spend time developing clear answers to values and impacts that your opponent brings up and counter any arguments brough up against your case. A lot of LD arguments can become convoluted so take time to be clear so I have a clear understanding of what you are trying to say.

Speed: I can understand speed, but the faster you talk the less I will write down. As a flow judge, talking incomprehensibly or too fast could be detrimental to your success in the round.

Roadmaps: I won't time your roadmaps as long as you identify them as roadmaps before you start talking. Keep them brief. Don't waste time by saying that the order will be con then pro during first rebuttal. If you are going to talk about specific arguments identify those in your roadmap.

Also if it sounds like you can't breath, you're talking too fast.

Overall: Be civil. Don't yell at your opponents, partner or me.

I've been part of debate since 2013. Most of my experience is in CX and PF. I was never a high school debater, but I am an English and speech professor. I coach novice and JV and believe that debate should be an activity centered on quality communication and logic - not speed, the volume of arguments, and bravado. For quality thoughts on winning judges, I loved this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/Debate/comments/16s6fec/a_former_pf_debaters_thoughts_on_how_to_win_more/.

I tend to be holistic in my evaluation of rounds. Not only did you have more arguments, but how do those arguments legitimately play out?

As the originator of Wisconsin's inclusion policies, I am highly attuned to arguments or arguers who come across as microaggressive, racist, sexist, or ableist in nature. This round WILL be a safe space for all.

PF Paradigm - Dos and Don'ts

Do - Tell me the story. Why is your world better than their world overall?

Do - Give me real-world impacts over big-boom impacts. We've had zero nuclear wars since we started arguing that a thing will lead to nuclear war - but people are dying every day from structural violence, weapons, poverty, etc.

Do - Cite quality evidence. Also, DO call out your opponents if they have bad sources. However, even if a team does not call out poor-quality evidence, I will consider it less if I am aware that it is sub-par evidence because I do not judge in a vacuum.

Do - Four-point your responses

Do - Clash with your opponents

Do - weigh your arguments against your opponent

Don't speed - I can't hear it. If it isn't on my flow, it didn't happen. Yes, I mean practically normal conversational speed. I will ask you to slow down a couple of times if you're too fast; after that, I won't flow what I can't hear.

Don't lie - don't say a team dropped something that they didn't. If it's on my flow and you make an accusation that is false just to try and win, you are more likely to lose instead due to your lack of integrity.

I am truth over tech. I will vote for one quality argument over arguments that don't outweigh.

I participated in forensics in high school and coached mock trial as a teacher.  A successful argument follows a clear structure in which one point builds upon the next and each is supported by clear and convincing evidence and strengthened by keen analysis.  Both team members should work together to advance a coherent strategy both for proving their assertions and disproving those of their opponents.  A wise team realizes that not all arguments have equal merit and will focus on enhancing stronger arguments in summary.  These should be the subject of final focus, as you want to end after having presented the strongest possible persuasion.

I am a parent judge - I have some experience from past tournaments, however, I am still learning some of the fundamentals and decision making processes. This means that the best way for you to win would be by being as clear and explaining your arguments as much as possible without the use of debate jargon. In addition, make sure you weigh your arguments and tell me why I should vote for you - the clearer you are, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

Outside and during the debate make sure you are kind and respectful to everyone in the room. Sexism, racism, or any other form of discrimination will not be tolerated and will lose you the ballot.

Please ask me any further questions you have about my judging before the round. Good luck to everyone!

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.

About me

Class of 2023 of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, with a major Sociology & Pre-law, and a minor in Political Science.

I've debated in policy all four years for Ronald Reagan High School (2016-2020). Since my high school debate days came to end, I have been judging debate in both policy, PF and LD. I also have been an assistant debate coach to my former high school. In summer 2023, I also obtained a fellowship working with National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL), furthering my knowledge in debate!

Yes, put me on the email chain zapidalia@gmail.com :)

Debate Stuff

I am a TABS judge, which stands tabula rasa, latin for "clean slate". Basically, this means you have to show and explain to me why arguments should be voted on. Clean slate means that I come in a round with no prior assumptions on what to vote on. In essence, I will vote on anything as long as it is properly explained and elaborated.

I do not tolerate any racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments.

Specifics

Speed: I think debate is about how well you argue, not how fast you can read. I am okay with spreading and speed, as long as you are clear.

Cross ex: Open cross ex always okay, just be mindful of individual speaker points

Framework: I LOVE framework, I will evaluate rounds on framing if you present one to me. As I do have a background in policy debate, I am familiar and very fond of framing that ranges anywhere from util, deontology, to consequentialism and categorical imperative.

Value Criterion: I like comparative analysis and direct clash against your opponent's framing. Please be sure to it pull through the round! If your value criterion is identical, I will leave it up to you to make those distinctions to me and/or outweighing your position on the resolution.

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.

Background: I have a bachelor's degree in English education and have been teaching language arts at Sheboygan North High School for 20 years. I have coached debaters in policy, Lincoln-Douglass and public forum for 17 years, including multiple state champions. My school's emphasis is on public forum.

It is best if you think about me as a fairly well-informed member of the public to get my ballot.

As far as public forum, I appreciate being given a clear framework to weigh the impacts and other voters in the round.

Debate is an activity of communication, and speed is not effective communication. Public forum is about persuading the average American voter that your stance on the resolution is the best one.

All judges, coaches and debaters who promote speed/spread should reflect on the damage it is doing to the accessibility of the activity to prospective debaters and schools wishing to start a debate program. More skill is demonstrated by honing your arguments down to the point that they can be effectively presented in the allotted speech time rather than racing through myriad of contentions that are under-developed. Speed is not progressive; it is destroying this valuable activity.

That stated, I will listen to any arguments debaters wish to run and the speed at which they choose to speak them, even if that is not how anyone anywhere else ever speaks.

Clash is good.

Adjusting to the judge is good.

Extending your arguments with evidence and not just analytical arguments is good...but analytical arguments are also good.

I believe the rebuttals are often pivotal speeches in the entire round. I reward good ones and blame bad ones for losses, often.

Finally, despite what some public forum judges may tell you, it is not possible, in my mind, to drop arguments in pf. If it was stated, it's on my flow. You don't have to go over every single argument in every single speech for me to continue to consider it. But if an opponent fails to address a key idea, certainly point that out.

I am a lay judge and have judged at a few national tournaments before.

I am familiar with the structure of public forum debate, but please keep your own speech times. I will only vote off what is said in speeches, so if you want me to consider something, please mention it in your speech. I will be writing things down but only as much as I can hear, so speak slowly.

Otherwise, be respectful and have fun. Good luck.

Quantum.ShidoWolf@gmail.com

_

Public Forum

Until recently, I have judged mostly Policy Debate. So my views on judging a round stem from that experience. I tend to look at a PF round in pretty much the same way. I am used to looking for what the plan is, what issues are currently there, and how do you solve them. I do however, understand that some PF topics don't tend to nicely allow for this kind of debate. With a few PF rounds under my belt, I have come to shift my focus a bit more on the quality of your arguments in the round.

So things to understand when you debate in front of me:

· Don't speed read. I understand there are time constraints in the round, but In the short constructive times, I don't want to have to try and hear and understand 20-30 different pieces of evidence and arguments. Be clear and understandable.

· Give me a quality framework in which I should be judging the round. For example, If you argue morals are key make me believe it and show me WHY and HOW the round should be judged under that framework.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· If you plan on giving me a roadmap, make it a bit more than just. "I'm gonna go over there stuff, then mine.." Tell me the order of the opponent's arguments you're going to talk about, and then the same for your own arguments. In PF time is limited, knowing where on my flow I need to be looking is helpful.

· If you're going to denounce an opponents source, make sure you have quality evidence to back up the claim. Don't just read something that says "well this small little group says he sucks." or "I don't think that place is a good source.

_

_

_

POLICY DEBATE

It's been a few years since I judged Debate. (you won't see those rounds on Tabroom). But I used to judge both Novice and Varsity. I just recently started Judging again. With that in mind:

My policy paradigm comes from when I debated 10+ years ago under my coach. I have adopted an old-school policy paradigm much like my coach and fellow debaters from that time. I judge and evaluate the round based on what I feel is the best policy for the Unites States under the given resolution. Everything you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president.

Line-by-Line

Speed - I'm not a big fan of speed. So Don't. I understand that because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in a normal debate atmosphere. I understand that. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style, especially in front of the President. Quality, not Quantity, is going to sway my decision. Reading 20 cards in a round does you no good if they are not on my flow. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. Clarity is a big part of this - Especially Tags on Evidence. I give a only few Clear/Slow warnings before I stop flowing.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly squirrel definition, I'm likely to just through it out of the round. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in debateland. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

Advantages / Dis-Advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and never allowed back. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. DAs/Advantages that argue Trump good or Trump bad or whatever are still okay in the round. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroy affirmative fiat. So, do not run “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

Counter-Plans - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

Kritiks - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counter-plan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, I'll treat you like a nutcase and throw you out of my office (i.e. I won't vote on it). Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Additional Notes -

1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you.

2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are questioned in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.