I am a new judge. I am also a former debater and currently work as an attorney. I appreciate it when teams are professional and allow one another to answer questions and do not mock or roll their eyes at the other team's arguments. I prefer that teams not make crazy arguments that are divorced from logic and common sense, but I rely upon the other team to call out such arguments.

I debated for Mukwonago High School from 2011-2014

Debate was my favorite part of high school. This activity is something I truly enjoy, so even if I am not super familiar with the topic, I'm here for the spirit of the sport.

When I'm judging, I am most concerned about what is the most logical. (I was a 2A and one of my favorite phrases was "try or die for the aff") Please don't make me make connections or draw conclusions because certain cards were dropped or you just didn't flow the argument all the way through. I think of myself as defaulting to a "policymaker" paradigm a lot because I like arguments that are logical and consistent.

I will time you and I also hope you're timing yourself because there is nothing like not knowing how much time you've got left in the 1AR.

Things I enjoy (policy):

- Politics DAs(when I was in high school I struggled with these DAs but now they make so much more sense because of how little our government has accomplished in the past 10 years since I started debating)

-Topicality (I think this is a particularly important issue if you are dealing with an unfamiliar aff and can provide examples of which plans would actually work under your interpretation- fair warning, I enjoy the technicality of this argument but I will not vote solely on it) *usually.

-Counterplans (sometimes it hurts me to vote for essentially a different aff, but if your counterplan addresses solvency deficits better than the aff and is actually catered to the specific aff you're facing, you're going to get my vote. But please please please don't do a PIC- I will be annoyed and triggered.)

Things I enjoy (PF):

-Evidence: quality over quantity and demonstrate an understanding of your evidence; basically, it is important to explain why this piece of evidence is important and why it is better than your opponents. Please also understand where a statistic comes from and the context behind it.

-Weighing is SUPER important in the round. In your final focus, I really like it when debaters tell me where I should be voting and why.

-When extending an argument, please articulate why I should be pulling it through, not just "pull this through, they didn't address it."

-During crossfire, I will listen, but if there is something brought up you want me to pay attention to, you need to mention it during your speech.

-Framework can become a voting issue for me. I have definitely voted on it before, but it has to relate to the arguments.

Please please please give me a road map before you start your speech. I also appreciate sign-posting during your speech.

Thing(s) I am sometimes skeptical of:

-K's (I have trouble grasping the higher level because I think it distracts from what I think the main purpose of the debate is which is passing a policy or not passing a policy based on it's effectiveness and likelihood, for me. BUT I will enjoy a K debate if you actually understand what you're saying and not just reading cards without any analysis.)

Some decorum:

-Please be respectful and courteous people

-On CX please try not to interrupt one another between the question and answer

-Don't steal prep time

-If possible, please have your camera on when you're speaking (I understand if it is not possible)

Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

LD Paradigm: You won't see nearly as much LD judging on my record, but I've done it. Judged our state finals in LD a few years back. My notes on PF and Policy may be informative, but I understand the differences here. Very big overview, I'm fine with Ks but make sure you have the time and the ability to cleanly and clearly explain them. Do not speed. The V/VC debate can get very technical - a list of blippy answers will carry far less weight than a few well-thought out answers. The Aff certainly doesn't have to have a plan, but you WILL have to paint an idea of how the world of the Aff might look. I feel it may be rare now for judges to be willing to vote neg on solvency alone, but I'm happy to do it if the evidence is strong.

I look at a few important things to decide who did the best. I check how well the teams clash with each other - do they respond to each other's points? I also look at the evidence they use to support their arguments. I pay attention to the content of what they say. Are their arguments logical, and do they make sense? I also think about whether their points are relevant to the debate topic. The way they organize their arguments is important too. Can I follow what they're saying easily? I am attentive to how well they communicate. Are they clear when they talk, and do they make their ideas easy to understand? During the part where they question each other, I see if they ask good questions and give good answers. It's like a conversation, and I want to see how well they handle it. The evidence they use also interests me the most. I check if it's reliable and recent. They also need to explain why it's important. Having a clear way to decide which arguments are more important is crucial. If they can show me why their points matter more, that's a plus. Responding to the other team's arguments is a skill I look for. They need to be good at saying why the other team is wrong while also making their own points stronger. Furthermore, I look at how they behave. Are they playing fair, following the rules, and being respectful? I want to see ethical behavior. Considering all these things helps me give fair feedback, usually verbal, and decide who did the best in the debate,

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a number of years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash. critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a crit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

I am a returning volunteer Judge. Make your statements slow and clear. During the speeches i will mention slow if you are going too fast or clear if I am having a tough time understanding.

I am affiliated with Dominican High School. I do not have experience in formal debating, and have very limited experience as a judge!

In terms of speaking rates, students may speak as fast as they would like. If I need them to slow down, I will ask them to do so.

In terms of my own approach to evaluation, I prefer arguments over style. I see the role of the final focus in the round as returning to and summarizing the main argument. To win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument should be extended in the summary speech. I try to weigh both evidence and analytics equally.

I will do my best to be a fair and thoughtful judge, and am thrilled to see young adults developing these skills in critical discourse - which are so essential for our democracy!

I am a middle school teacher, and have been casually involved in speech (primarily) and debate (somewhat) for almost 20 years. However, expect me to be a lay judge in PF. I take notes, but don't necessarily keep a structured flow. Referring to arguments is preferred to referring to cards.

It is important that partners are on the same page. If you want me to vote for something at the end of the round, I will generally expect to see it talked about in the summary. Ideally work to persuade me to your side, a believable story is more effective than one that is technically flowed through.

Don't make crossfire into an argument. If that happens you will probably lose speaker points.

Very Important: If you are rude, condescending, or otherwise make me not want to listen to you, I have made that my RFD in the past, regardless of what arguments are being made. I cannot be persuaded by someone who doesn't use persuasion to get me on their side. That type of behavior destroys the educational value of the debate and discourages both new debaters and judges from participating in the activity.

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.

My name is Nolan Stearns, and I teach at Parker High School in Janesville, Wisconsin. My passion for social studies has led to an interest in debate. While I may be a teacher, I will be judging as an unbiased party. This will be my first year judging debate, and while I do not have experience judging, I do, wholeheartedly, commit to judging fairly and impartially. Some things I would like to see during the debate is speakers laying out an untimed road map, which affords me the opportunity to get a clearer understanding of where that speaker is going to be taking the round. This makes it much easier to gauge and weigh the strength of the argument being made by each speaker. Further, I want speakers to be respectful of one another, meaning each participant is listening when another is speaking.

Best of luck to all those competing!

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.

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.

Introduction - Tim Wells

Coach and judge for DeForest Area High School.

As a student, debated in Policy in HS and college for several years in the early 90s.

After a long absence, got back into debate in the fall of 2021. Judged at one tournament last season and 4 so far this season.

In terms of speaking, I am not a fan of speed but won't interrupt to slow anyone down.

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? EQUALLY.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? TO RESTATE KEY ARGUMENTS, IMPACTS, AND SUGGESTED REASONS FOR DECISION.

3. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? NOT NECESSARILY.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? I HAVE A MARGINAL PREFERENCE FOR ANALYTICS.