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 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!

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. 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 am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

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, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. 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.

DAs and 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 and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - 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.

K - 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 counterplan. 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, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 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 disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

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.

This is my 9th year judging LD and PF. I was a Policy 4-person debater throughout high school before switch side took over. With that being said, speed generally isn't an issue for me. However, if you plan on reading so fast that you can't seem to catch your breath we may have an issue. I will say clear and if I still can't understand you I will close my laptop and stop flowing. It isn't fair to your opponent if you are reading so fast they cannot keep up and frankly, it's bad debating.

I enjoy listening to debates that interact with the real world. I like hearing about the big picture, I tend to pay more attention to big picture items in round versus minute details. Tell me why I should vote for you and what will happen if I don't. I like hearing impact calculation, cost benefit analyses and the more 'policy like' arguments (the only exception to the policy like arguments is nuclear war. We get it, we’re all going to die of nuclear fallout, there are far better impacts than this.) While I prefer real world ideas and how my decision will impact people, I enjoy listening to theory debates. When running theory I want you to explain to me what it is you're running, I want you to teach it to me like I'm a kid. I need to know that you understand what you are talking about. Theory is not only difficult to run but exceptionally difficult to run well. A bad theory argument is a time suck to the debate round and a missed chance of learning for you and your opponent.

I’ve heard so many bad roadmaps. If you are going to give me a roadmap before your speech please just tell me whether it’s your case or your opponent’s case and, if it’s relevant whether it is on or off case. I don’t need a long detailed explanation on what you are covering in each contention during your roadmap.

Cross Ex: This is for you as a debater, I'm not flowing this or pulling through any arguments you made here. Cross Ex is for you to clarify and ask questions of your opponents.

I expect debaters to time their own speeches and cross examination. I also expect that you keep track of your own prep time, I will as well but, technology is fickle and having an additional timer is usually helpful. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them.

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! (:

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.

I did PF debate for 4 years, forensics for 3, and graduated in 2021. I am now going to college at UW-Green Bay Sheboygan Campus. 

There are two big caveats to my judging. First, speak at a pace that is suitable for a Walmart cashier or bus driver. I prefer you are slow and clear as opposed to being fast and jumbled. Second, make your arguments make sense. Don't overuse the debate jargon and be clear in the narrative of the round. Do these two things well and at the very least your speaks will be a bit higher.

I will listen to most arguments but keep in mind if you think your argument is too weird, I probably do too. As long as you both take yourselves seriously, I will (probably) take you seriously as well.

I know it also probably doesn't need to be said, but be civil. I can assure you that I will be making weird faces at all of the crazy stuff you guys say, but I can do that because my camera will be off (if we are online). Don't do it to the other team (unless your camera is also off of course). As for debating in person, try not to make faces at all because it is just rude and kind of lame.

Post-round feedback will be kept at a minimum as we all have lives outside listening to a judge babble about nothing. I will try to be as clear, concise, and thorough as possible in my written ballot. 

If you want verbal feedback on the round beyond what I put on the ballot, let me know after the round and we can work something over another video call or something between rounds. I really want to avoid giving this feedback after the round because it will hold up the entire tournament.

As for the virtual stuff, I will have my camera on only when I am speaking at length and keep it (and my mic obviously) off otherwise. I do not mind what you do with your camera. Having it off or on will not affect whether you win the round or your speaks.

Tl;DR: I've done debate, be human, be nice, I won't give verbal feedback unless you ask, do whatever you want with your camera.

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.

Background:

I debated PF for four years, went to NCFL three times in PF. I debated LD for a month and have primarily judged LD the previous years.

I've been judging pretty consistently since Fall 2017.

I'm currently a Political Science PhD candidate, so I have an extensive background in a lot of theories and the current events in the world. If you want to run some political theory- beautiful.

LD:

I am a mostly traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks and Theory, but I will pick it up if it is run really, really well.

And by really, really well, I mean God-Tier. There is nothing worse than underdeveloped theory. Ks can be fun and interesting, but only if run right.

Honestly, I kinda hate T Shells. Debate about the topic at hand, don't debate about debate.

FOR NCFLS: LD is NOT ALLOWED to use a plan or counter-plan. I WILL be following this, as per NCFL rules.

PF:

I like weighing and cost-benefit analysis. Body count is something that I weigh heavily in rounds. Make sure you have evidence to back up your points!

Also, I'm rather strict on the rule of not being allowed to bring up new evidence or points in final focus.

Time:

I will keep track of time. Please use your time wisely. If you go over, you can finish your sentence/thought, but anything more than that I will stop flowing.

Speed:

I can handle speed, but not a fan of spreading. It doesn't belong in LD/PF. "How do you know you are spreading?" you ask. Are you hyperventilating or foaming at the mouth? Yes? That is spreading. Calm down, please. No need to die mid-debate.

How I calculate Speaks:

Organization in speeches (Line by lines or clear signposting are beautiful)

Good, thought-provoking questions in cross

Speed and annunciation are balanced (don't talk so fast that you cannot get words out properly)

Being civil (this is debate, you don't need to be your opponent's friend. But please do not yell, scream, insult, threaten, etc. Also don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.)

I don't exactly care if you swear (some judges are sticklers on that), but don't drop f-bombs every other second.

Oral Critiques/Disclosing:

I will usually give oral critiques if both teams want me to. If you ask me to give you feedback, feel free to ask a question, but please don't yell at me if you disagree. Thanks.

I'll disclose if both teams want me to, unless I need more time to re-look over my flow and organize thoughts or if the tournament does not allow disclosing. If any person does not want me to disclose, I will not, unless required by the tournament directors.

FOR NCFLS: Oral critiques and disclosing are not permitted at NCFLS.