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'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.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2025 New Year's Tournament Edition

Version 3.402, Date 1/2/2025

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 36/0/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 551/77/2103

Years Judging: 41

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're in the middle of the season, these comments should no longer be necessary. Unfortunately, they are needed as much if not more than at the beginning of the season. Please read all of my paradigm before preferencing me or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and in college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fifteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my eighth year of coaching LD debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. I will look for ways not to do so. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is ?? minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, as does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse, I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”---horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Repeat, the word "ought does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot, you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

"I don't observe daylight savings time or time zones."---Don Callis

"[He's] an orange-hued dirigible exuberantly buoyed aloft by the inexhaustible Primus stove of his own ego."---Boris Johnson, on Donald Trump

"If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal has been cooked a long time ago."---Oma Desala

“The early bird may get the worm, but it’s the second mouse that gets the cheese.”---Nigel McGuiness

“Anytime you hear ‘with all due respect,’ disrespect is sure to follow.”---Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP)

"Sorry 'bout your damn luck."---The Tennessee Cowboy James Storm

“Tact is just not saying true stuff.”---Cordelia Chase

"The best sounding evidence comes from true believers, paid experts and quacks."---David Henning

“It is easier to fool people than to convince someone they’ve been fooled.”---Mark Twain

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

“Mom, I’m a vampire slayer.”—Buffy Summers

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised poorly by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton, on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

"You blow up one sun and everyone expects you to walk on water."---Lt. Col. Samantha Carter

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in sixteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s last season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in eighteen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A road map is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

she/her

eyliterski22@gmail.com

i did policy debate for 4 years in high school; wisconsin and some nat circuit

1. i will not vote for any ontologically violent args (racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, ableism good, etc.); make these args or be any ist/phobic and you get an L and 0 speaks

2. tech>truth (but u still need to explain why what they dropped matters)

3. spreading is fine (slow down on tags, analytics, theory) being unclear is not - i will say clear x2, after that i’ll attempt to keep flowing but it will prob be bad

4. i’m a tabs judge so run what you want - don’t try to judge adapt too much

5. feel free to ask questions

6. have fun and be nice ! debate is cool so enjoy it

**i have not judged this year's topic

READ IF U WANT:

the following are thoughts i have ab dif args and background info; could help u to understand how i evaluate rounds or improve ur chances of getting my ballot. *good debating can change any of these thoughts

case:

-idc what aff you read

-no, teams don't need to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan but u should have a reason why you aren't

-tell me how to frame the impacts of the 1ac otherwise i default to magnitude x probability

-your impact scenarios should probably be more than two, 5-sentence cards

-for neg - case turns r super cool and good

-plz don’t drop ur case :(

T:

-competing interps > reasonability

-definition quality matters !!

-potential abuse can be a voter but in-round abuse is more persuasive

-if u go for T it should be all 5 min of the 2NR

-T is not a reverse voter

theory:

-theory is cool; neutral on all theories except disclosure (DISCLOSE TO UR OPPONENT)

-generally think condo is fine *if your strat is to bombard the aff with 9 off and hope they drop something, pref me low

-almost all theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team

-i dislike when teams try to trick their opponents into dropping their 3 sentence theory that was shoved into a T shell - if u do this i’ll be very open to the other team getting new answers

-some theories are not cool, pls don’t read them or i will tank ur speaks (eg. formal clothes theory or shoes theory)

disads:

-DAs that turn case make me happy

-for aff - link turns to DAs make me happy

-plz have a coherent link chain

-good ptx DAs are rare but awesome

-yes, do impact calc

cps:

-should prob be functionally and textually competitive

-this should go without saying but i’ll say it anyways: u need to prove why the cp is better than the plan to win it

-i won’t judge kick unless u tell me to

-for aff - perms are good

ks:

-default to weighing the aff against the alt

-good for ks of reps/rhetoric, cap, set col, anthro, statism, security, etc.; anything beyond that you’ll need to explain a bit more

-no matter what k ur reading u need to clearly articulate the links, impacts, and alt (put the work in even if ur reading a generic k)

-for aff - just saying ‘extinction outweighs’ is less persuasive than actually engaging with the k

k affs v. FW:

for aff:

-i don’t think that FW is inherently violent

-turning their impacts is good, prob better than counter interps of their definitions

-prove to me why your model of debate is better

-i think the 1ac should defend something and a shift from the squo, what that something happens to be is up to you

for neg:

-if your model of debate completely prevents kritikal args from being ran i will have a hard time voting for it

-having a TVA is prob good but not necessary

-i’m pretty neutral between education/skills impacts and clash/fairness - both can be persuasive

SPEAKS (nat circuit only):

• a 28.5 = average, above that means good job and below that means practice more or be nicer

• anything below a 27 means you did something wrong (were super rude or left like 3 minutes left in a speech)

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

TL;DR: I'm cool with whatever as long as you understand it and explain it so that I do too. If you run something complex and don't explain it well, that's your fault because I won't understand it either. I've got a decent background with progressive debate so it should be fine, but if it's super philosophical pls explain it well. I don't particularly like theory or t unless there's a valid reason for running it. Don't run anything offensive or I'll automatically drop you. Provide a trigger warning (if needed) out of respect for everyone in the round. Speed is fine.

put me on the email chain!: kmperez555@gmail.com

Background: I debated for Golda Meir for four years in LD. I am a current student at UW-Madison majoring in Legal Studies and Chicane/Latine Studies, with certificates in Public Policy and Criminal Justice. My debate experience ranges from local circuit to national circuit tournaments. I've judged a multiple of tournaments, so please treat me like any other past debater! I don't judge that frequently anymore so I might ask what the resolution is.

General In-Round Things:

Speed: Speed is fine. Slow down on tags and anything else important that you really want on my flow. I'll say clear as much as I can. Be mindful and do it with purpose.

Framework: You should have at least some form of it. Whether that's a value/value criterion or a role of the ballot, there should be something telling me from what lense I should look at for what you're saying. If you end up running a very philosophical fw, articulate it well for me in round. Do not just say that both of your fw's are a wash, that's not true. You still need to evaluate it and stress it within case.

Theory/T: I'll evaluate it only if I need to and only if there is something inherently abusive in round. Don't just run it because you think its fun or want to do for time constraints. I'm not a big fan of T but if it's necessary I'll evaluate it!

Kritiks: These are great, but be sure to explain it well for me especially if it is super philosophical/technical or out of the box. Be sure to tell me how the alt solves!

Performance: I have not heard this in a long time, but I love this! Explain in round impacts clearly!

Plans/CPs/PICS: I'll listen to them but I just don't there is enough time to really go through it. I'll vote for it but you have to do a really good job at explaining why the rest is bad/how the resolution is a worse alternative. I think CPs only work if there's a plan but I will evaluate them!

DAs: These are great, but just be clear and explain in round impacts well!

Other things: Clear voters. Tell me exactly what I need to vote on and why. Please and I can not stress this enough but please tell me why your impacts matter and weigh them throughout the round, not just at the end. Tell me why your competitor's world is innately bad. Don't just extend your warrants but explain to me why they matter in your world or how you do it better than your opponents world. If I had to evaluate the round on my own and you leave room for me to analyze it, then it puts a ton of work on my end, so please weigh everything.

Miscellaneous:

- I typically time each speech but I do forget so please time yourselves. Open prep is fine with me as long as both debaters agree with it.

- I don't really care whether you sit or stand in round unless it's like an elim round. If its a virtual tournament, I have no preference for having your cameras on. Do what's most comfortable to you.

- I love when competitors clash especially during CX, so just generally clash but don't be rude about it. It will ruin your speaks if you are out-right rude to your opponent.

- I will listen to outrageous (out of the box cases) and I find them fun. So if you are willing to do it and take the risk, go for it!

- Any -phobias or -isms will absolutely not be tolerated. You'll get the lowest speaks I can give and I'll automatically drop you. Debate is meant to be inclusive, not hurtful.

- I'll give you pretty high speaks unless you're rude or offensive. Just don't be a dick please especially when competing with opponents that have a lower skill difference.

- Have fun. If you have any questions or comments, please email me! (same one as above)

Congressional Debate

TL;DR: I value the overall content of the speech and your points, rather than the quality. However, since it is a Speech activity, I do like it when debaters are very clear about their points following a long list of extensions as to why one should or should not be able to pass/fail a particular bill. It provides a ton of clash! Don't run or say anything offensive, or I'll give you the lowest speaks I can give! Any further questions, just ask me before session!

About me

4 years policy debate Rufus King Highschool

3 years student congress Rufus King Highschool

3 Central Michigan University NFA-LD debate team

General things

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to argument

i'm good with speed, spreading

put me on the email chain asiakaye12@gmail.com

always give a ROB I will not do work for you tell me how I should be voting never drop framework even if you meet under your opponents framework say that.

tech over truth

keep flows clean, always give a rode map

use all your time for speeches and cx

Aff stuff

make sure you know your AFF love K aff's i'm very familiar with critical aff's you have to win your affirmative case to win the round. know the warrants in the 1ac you should know your case. judges can tell if you don't understand or passionate about your case I like all affs not against arguments. don't drop your aff make sure in each speech your giving warrants tell me how I should frame the round

Neg stuff

kritiks

love love kritiks ran them a lot in high school don't assume I know what your talking about don't leave me doing work for you at the end of the debate, the impact, alt, the link should be clear during your speech. the alt needs to be explained and compared to the world of the affirmative give evidence on why the alt solves better than the aff case. make sure the link chain is clear and you give a ROB

Topicality

Don't really like topicality I feel debate would be more useful talking about important topics not arguing on the rules of debate. will still vote on it if its dropped and extended

Counterplans

neg needs to prove the counterplan solves the case better than the aff plan. you should always have a net ben

PF

make sure to keep the flow clean and answer each argument, make sure to use your evidence and make it clear to the judge where the evidence is getting pulled from.

traasatae@yahoo.com

I am a retired debate coach (also coached speech and theatre), who for over 25 years coached Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and once it became a debate event Public Forum debate. It can be assumed that simply due to my longevity that I am just a dinosaur judge… but I do not think that completely articulates the type of judge that you will have in the back of this round.

My first premise is to always attempt be a tabula rasa adjudicator, given the constraints of sound debate theory. That being said, I will not be drawn into some absurd games-playing paradigm by debaters attempting to belittle the educational expectations of this academic activity. Bottom line – I believe this is still the best activity any student can be involved in to best prepare themselves to be a better citizen.

Public Forum – I still feel that this style of debate should be accessible to anyone and everyone. Thus, I would expect it to be understandable, organized and cordial. Also, I feel it should be free of what I call blip arguments. (ex. I despise one-word framework blips like “Framework – Util”) I am sorry, but if you want me to specifically exercise my decision process through a specific framework – you certainly need to define and develop that concept. I also believe Public Forum debaters and the debate itself benefit from good ethos. So, what am I looking for in a good round of PF? Sound argument(s), clash, good refutation and solid summation. In the end, if there are good standing impacts on both sides of the debate – I expect the final focuses do a thorough impact calculus. (Don’t make me do the work, that is your responsibility as a debater, not mine as the judge.) Do not be afraid to ask me questions before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.

Lincoln Douglas – I have always loved value-based debates! That being said, I am not sure that LD is still this type of debate. So, understand that when I become grumpy when an LD round turns into a policy debate – I am not grumpy with you the debaters, but more so the direction that this high-speed vehicle is headed. (Believe it or not, back when this style of debate was introduced, it also was meant to be an accessible style of academic debate for the public.) More than anything else, I dislike the incorporation of policy debate language, but not necessarily defined the same in LD. I am often still shocked with plantext in LD, specifically when the resolution does not specifically demand or require action. I do understand that over these decades LD resolutions have moved to more policy-oriented proposals but bear with this old man and understand that I still appreciate weighing an LD round through value-premise based arguments. Additionally, I have always felt that most legitimate arguments in LD are critical at their fundamental level, thus I am often unsure how a “K” is to be weighed in the round but do expect to be informed by the debaters. (once more, I expect the debaters to do the work, not to leave it to me) Again, do not be afraid to ask me questions before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.

- At this point, let me explain… I think the greatest sin that a judge can commit is to intervene. As a judge, I will keep a thorough flowchart, and will make my decision based on what is on my flow. If it is not on my flow, that is not my fault. I will not do the work for you. I NEVER flow CX or crossfire. If you want it on my flow, it better be in a speech proper. As far as rate of delivery, I believe that as long as you are understandable, I will be able to follow you. If I find you incomprehensible, I will tell you so (oftentimes in the form of vocally shouting “clearer”), but if I have to do that, you can bet that you are losing ethos points on my flow. My non-verbal language is pretty loud and clear, thus making sure that I am following your logic or argumentation is still your part of this communication process. Therefore, keep an eye on me, and you should be able to tell that I am following you. I find it silly when debaters tell me before they begin to speak – “I will now give you a non-timed roadmap” in Public Forum or LD. My PF and LD flows are on a single piece of paper… I have always equated “roadmap” in debate with Policy debate and placing the 5 to 8 pages of the full flow in the correct order for the speech that I am about to hear. And then I still expected to be told when to move from one page of a flow to another. Thus – a roadmap in PF or LD, I would expect to take less than a couple of seconds and find it just silly that I need to be told that the roadmap is to be non-timed. (all 3 to 5 seconds of it.) I feel awkward and uncomfortable about the “additional tech time”. (Until organizations identify specific “tech time” to include into the round, I often feel it is still using someone’s prep time, and am uncomfortable just adding additional time to the round and making sure it is fully applicable to everyone involved.)

Policy - It has been a while since I have judged policy debate, and that time makes me feel inadequate to judge a good VCX round. But if the situation arises, I will do my best to be a quality judge. In policy world, I am much more a policymaker than stock judge. I appreciate theory and believe it can still be the mechanism to weigh all issues in a policy round. I am a bit of a purist, in the fact that I still expect anyone running a critical argument or a performative position, to be fully committed to that argument or position. (I WILL vote for a performative contradiction). Otherwise, making sure it is on my flow and that I understand the argument will go a long way to winning my ballot. I do not like reading evidence, that is not my job, if you require me to read the ev, you are not fully doing your job. Everything else… just ask me before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.

Email for fileshare:

umstot.david@gmail.com

Don't postround me. I judge on what I heard in the round and nothing you say after the round will change my ballot. If you do choose to postround me I will walk out of the room and give you the lowest speaks possible for the tournament. You may email me with questions after the round provided your adult coach is CCed on the email.

POLICY
Three years policy debate experience, head coach at Brookfield Central High School.

I'm a tabula rasa judge, but if you don't tell me what to vote on, I'll fall back to which is the better policy based on impact calculus. Do the impact calculus for me, unless you want me to do it myself.

I'm not a fan of Topicality. I'll hear it, and I'll flow it, but you must convince me that it's a voter and your definition can't be absolutely ridiculous.

I love Counterplans, as I was a CP-heavy debater myself. Kritiks are fine, but give me a clear alternative and make sure that you explain your K well.

You can speed, but not through tags or analytic arguments. I need to be able to flow. I'll tell you if you're speaking too quickly for me.

Use roadmaps and signposting. It makes it easier for me to flow, and better for you if I can understand the debate.

Clash is by and large one of the most important things in a debate for me. You'll keep my attention and get much higher speaker points.

I like real-world impacts. You might have a hard time convincing me of global extinction. Be smart when it comes to impacts and make sure they realistically link.

Open C-X is fine, but don't go overboard. Keep in mind that it's your partner's C-X, and if you use all of it, I will dock you speaker points.

New in the 2 - I'm okay with this I suppose...but with this in mind, the Affirmative is definitely free to run theory on this if the 2N is just trying to spread the Aff out of the round by saving their entire offense for the 2NC.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
First and foremost, I evaluate the framework. However, even if you lose the framework, that doesn't mean you've lost the round. Prove your case can fit under your opponent's framework. If I can still evaluate your case under your opponent's framework, I can still buy your case. As far as the contention debate goes, I don't necessarily buy that you have to win every contention to win the contention debate. You don't have to take out all of your opponent's contentions, either. Focus on impacts. Focus on weighing your case against your opponent's case, and how each contention provides the best example of the value. The team who provides the most evidence that shows affirming/negating will benefit society (through either value) more will win the debate.

I welcome CPs, Ks, and ROTBs, as long as you are running them because YOU understand them, not because you think your opponent WON'T. The point of debate is education, and running a tricky K in a convoluted way to confuse your opponent won't win you a ballot in front of me. Be clear and contribute to the education of debate. I prefer that you don't spread too much in LD. Although I do judge policy as well, and can flow most speed, it's not my preference.
I'll disclose but I'm not going to give you excessive oral critiques. That's what my ballot is for.