I am the parent of a debater. This is my second time judging. Please speak at a moderate speed and clearly with good volume. I give more importance to few points expressed clearly and more profoundly, with examples or data to back them up, rather than too many points expressed in a hurry and disorganized way. Thank You.

This is my first time judging. I would appreciate it if arguments are articulated well and overall easy to follow. I can usually follow quick speakers as long as things are explained thoroughly, but as I am new to this I would recommend a slow-medium pace. I don't understand much of the debate jargon so don't bring that up unless you want to explain what it means to me. Primarily weighing will decide the winner of the round, so make sure to weigh your arguments and compare them to your opponents and use that to explain why I should vote for you. Finally, make sure to maintain a civilized environment. Thank You!

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.

i debated public forum at Middleton HS, WI for four years. i also competed in extemp and congress for a while. i'm now majoring in econ, finance and math (still exploring though) at UW-Madison. this paradigm is for public forum only.

you can email me here: aarush.j094@gmail.com or jain94@wisc.edu if you need to contact me during round or have any questions about my paradigm. include me in all speech docs/evidence docs/case docs etc

when sending evidence, you must include the source, year, what you read out loud (the paraphrased part) and the actual text of the source. i don't run prep when you look at evidence unless you ask for an excessive amount of evidence. this means that your partner should NOT be prepping when you look at evidence.

stuff you need to know:

• tech judge, but not pure flow (a little flay)
• evidence ethics are very important to me. i will call cards if your opponents ask me to and may ask to see other cards that seemed to have changed in meaning throughout the round.
• flowing through ink = bad. frontline pls. no new arguments after rebuttal, only responses.
• idk theory besides disclosure and i don't like theory that much (regardless, if your opponent has no response, you will win)
• an extension includes the claim, warrant and impact. restating the impact isn't an extension. you need to extend to win. extend your entire arguments (not just impacts) in second rebuttal, summary and final focus.
• i'm strict on timing. offtime roadmaps are overrated (unless you have theory) and lead to people not signposting. pls signpost.
• idk what a k is. please don't do k's.
• i tend to give higher speaks. if a tournament doesn't have their own scale, here is my scale: 27 below average, 28 average, 29 good, 30 wow! i like using decimal points in speaks, if i can. i'm comfortable giving everyone >29 in good rounds.
• speaking clearly, line by line, and being nice -> high speaks (i enjoy jokes and humor)
• i appreciate the delivery aspect of debate. in the real world, your presentation is very important so use voice inflections, emphasize certain words and make yourself enjoyable to listen to. narratives are cool and underrated, use them.
• exceptional rudeness or discrimination results in an auto-loss. in general, if you're unpleasant, i will find ways to vote against you.
• default framework: utilitarianism. honestly, i think other frameworks are valid and i like moral debates too. i understand kant (deont). make sure you explain non-util frameworks though.
• i don't listen to cross. if it's important, tell it to me in the next speech.
• stealing prep = 20 speaks. i trust you all to time yourself but if i notice a disparity in timing, i view it as an unfair advantage and it will factor into my decision. i likely will time your rounds.
• i enjoy entertainment and would love to be entertained. monotone droning about nuclear war is not entertaining. jokes, quotes, and passion are entertaining and viewed favorably.

other stuff:

• spreading = loss. speak medium speed. debate should be easily understandable to everyone.
• quality > quantity. five contention cases are bad.
• analytics are underrated imo. if you give an analytical argument (with a reason) and your opponent doesn't respond, that is just as important as carded evidence.
• weighing is primarily how i determine the winner of a round. final focus should explicitly tell me why to vote for you and why. weigh your impacts and metaweigh, if necessary. compare your world vs. the opponents' world and use qualifiers like "even if" when you weigh.
• i flow but I'll miss stuff. it's your responsibility to continually bring up the most important parts of your argument. don't waste time giving me name, source, year. focus on the argument not the evidence.
• with that being said, if your opponent points out a discrepancy in evidence, then i'll check the evidence. in cases where i believe evidence is a] important to determine the winner and b] unclear what it says, i will call for it even in cases where the opponent didn't point it out.
• i tend to prefer high-probability impacts because they are more realistic but if you weigh magnitude > probability and provide a reason why, i'll vote for you.
• 900 million people won't go into poverty in a recession. this actually makes no sense. no other recession (including covid) had this devastating impact, don't use this card.
• i will try to disclose--if the tournament allows me to. let me know if i forget.
• feel free to ask questions after the round. please don't be rude.
• i will do my best not to intervene. if there is no offense in a round, the team that was more persuasive in delivery wins. delivery matters!
• offtime roadmaps should be <5 seconds. i prefer you signpost but if your roadmap is more than ten words, i will begin to time it as part of your speech.
• there are time limits. adhere to them. i will interrupt you if you're 20-30 seconds overtime and i will stop flowing one sentence after time has elapsed. if your opponent weighs something they said over time, bring it up so i don't forget and i won't consider it as part of the round.
• more technical stuff: if an argument isn't in summary, it can't be in final focus. if you speak first, you can just attack the other side in first rebuttal. preemptive responding is optional. second rebuttal must defend and attack. i would encourage teams to strategically choose which arguments to defend. i can't think of a good reason why you'd flow through >2 arguments in second rebuttal.
• don't say you're using one minute of prep. just say you're starting and tell me when you're ending. time it yourself and i will also time. oftentimes, one minute of prep turns into 1:30.
• i haven't been involved in the debate space for a year now so i might be a bit rusty.

my main philosophy is that as a judge, i should not intervene unless something unfair occurs (prep stealing, evidence misrepresentation, discrimination, unsafe environment). no matter my thoughts on an argument, i will fairly evaluate it and if your opponent doesn't respond, you win that argument.

p.s. if you want more detailed advice, email me and we can set up a time to talk. note: i don't know how helpful my advice will be as i wasn't an exceptional debater during high school.

thank you! have fun :)

I vote primarily on the clear presentation of arguments, supported by quality evidence, that are linked throughout the debate.

It helps to explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with limited experience on the topic would understand.

Speed is fine if it is clear and persuasive. I can flow each team well throughout the debate, but speed sometimes limits the impact the speaker is trying to make.

I don’t vote on things not in the final focus or summary.

As for speaker points, I put an emphasis on speaking persuasively over speed, spreading, and heavy reliance on evidence alone.

i've done debate all four years at Middleton High School. have experience in congress and extemp as well.

for prep sharing, viewing my flows, or questions email kiltlyn825@gmail.com

AS A JUDGE i am tech>truth. the flow is the most important thing to me as well as substantial arguments

general comments:

• i can handle fast paced reading but drop speaker points if it is incomprehensible
• evidence ethics are important to me... lying and misguided sources will lead to lowered speaker points or even an automatic loss
• i generally give high speaker points. if you are rude and make the round hostile you will recieve 20 points
• strict on timing so do not start prep without informing me or waste time in round. off time road maps are okay AS LONG as they are under 5 seconds
• speak clearly and signpost well
• WEIGHING is the most important factor i consider in judging. tell me clearly why i should vote for you and your evidence. meta weighing is even better but not fully needed.
• i flow well but would like to still hear repeat of authors or card sources
• feel free to ask questions about ballot after a round but do not be rude

more comments:

• i am not opposed to theory IF RUN CORRECTLY. once you introduce theory but drop it on the flow i will not allow it to be used in final focus. disclosure theory is kind of dumb but if well ran i'll let it slide
• i don't understand k's. please don't use k's
• framework can be anything but default is utilitarianism. if using anything else convince me why it should be used instead
• quality > quantity. i don't want to be overloaded with 15 different arguments if they are all mediocore (unless you somehow make 15 strong arguments then go right ahead)
• if an argument isn't in summary i will not flow it through in final focus. that is your job not mine

• don't load speech with debate jargon but one or two won't hurt
• delivery is extremely important. keep it professional but also emotional, i need to be persuaded
• in second rebuttal make sure to defend your case. if not you are essentially dropping all your arguments (I am a heavy flow judge)
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN SECOND SUMMARY OR ANY FINAL FOCUS

Speaker Points System:

20-21 => ONLY if rude or disruptive in round

25-27 => below average, not clear speaking

28-29 => good speaking

30 => if you speak well and have good delivery

Feel free to email or ask me more questions before round

let's make the round enjoyable for everyone ...good luck!

My background ~ I'm a freshman at UW-Madison and am a Brookfield East Graduate. I did not participate in debate during high school and do not plan on it in college. My girlfriend was a national LD debater and she has recently got me into the judging scene. I do not know more advanced forms of debate and prefer traditional/lay debates. What I look for in a good debater is the ability to provide solid reputable evidence to back up contentions and to turn/counterargue the contentions of your opponent. I also value extensions when people address all parts of an argument and provide multiple types of evidence for their contentions/counter arguments. Since I am new to this and have only judged two tournaments, I would prefer if y'all talk at conversational speed and are nice and loud. I don't need your cases shared with me and all I ask is that your kind and respectful to your opponents.

I'm a parent judge and this is my first year participating in PF. Don’t assume I’m familiar with PF jargon. When judging a round, I give a lot of weight to the final focus speech and am looking for teams to effectively prioritize their strongest contentions and weigh the impact(s) against the opposing team’s case. My verbal RFD will be concise but I will provide more extensive feedback on the written ballot.

I am a chemical engineer by education and have worked in pharmaceutical manufacturing for over 20 years.

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

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

Congress at the bottom.

PF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there!

I have no debate or judging background so please treat this round as such.

Please fully explain your link chains and cards to me and keep debate jargon to a minimum and/or clearly lay out what that jargon means to me as a judge.

Please be mindful of speed, If you are spreading I will not be able to understand you.

Please keep your own time, I will also have time but be mindful that I am not 100% on speech times.

As always, be respectful of one another and have fun :)

Thanks!

I debated Policy Debate for three years in high school and want you to paint a picture in my mind of what your world would look like from your stance (pro/con).

Pros: Pick your top contentions, support them with evidence, and tell us why they are the most important factors in the debate. I want to know how and why we should DO MORE ("increase our efforts") to peacefully resolve armed conflict in West Asia. What are the benefits vs. the cons?

Cons: Refute each contention with clear evidence and logic, and tell me why the "pro" world would be detrimental to our safety, stability, and wellbeing as a human race. I want to know why we should NOT DO MORE to increase our efforts.

I value quality over quantity. Whittle the content down to one or two big areas. I would prefer to hear a clear, understandable flow over speed.

Please be clear when labeling and referring to Contentions. Summarize the contention using a few words and then expand with your evidence and reasoning.

The impact of nuclear war is a hard sell for me. You can argue it, but I want to hear solid, current evidence that it is an imminent threat to our world. I want to see impacts that are probable, likely, or already occurring, and I want to hear evidence that puts into perspective the repercussions of acting, or not acting on diplomatic efforts.

Finally, please weigh the round. During your final speeches, I want you to speak directly to me (reasonably of course), and tell me why I should vote for pro/con.

I started debating in 1998, competing in Policy Debate through High School and College on a scholarship. My personal debate highlights include state champion (2001), successful trips to both NSDA (formerly NFL) and CEDA Nationals, speaker award at the Pan-Pacific Debate Championship (South Korea, 2003). I have served as a debate camp counselor (Whitman College; Bellingham Debate Cooperative at WWU) and as a paid debate evidence contributor for West Coast Publishing. I have coached and judged Policy, LD and Public Forum in the many years since then.

You may put me in a specific paradigm via your argumentation in the round. In the absence of this, I will default to my own style of policymaking, which is to compare the world of the aff (pro) vs the world of the neg (con) and vote for the "world" that solves more/bigger problems than it creates.

I prefer impacted arguments with "even if..." type analysis. Chances are you aren't winning everything in the round, so this helps me as a judge understand how you'd like me to weigh competing arguments.

On a sidenote, please be ready to begin your speech when you stop prep time and/or run out of it. If you tell me to end prep time (or run out of it) and after a reasonable amount of time have not actually started your speech, I will start your speech time so please be prompt.