General Stuff:

Experience: I debated for three years in Policy Debate for Neenah High School (WI) and I have been judging LD, PF, and Policy since I graduated.

Paradigm: Tabs, unless there's no F/W in which case I default to Util. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. Tech/Truth.

Timing: I will be timing prep, cross and rounds, but I expect you to time yourself. I will let you know when you are going over.

Pacing: I am very comfortable with speed but speaking fast should not make you incomprehensible. Both myself and your opponent should be able to hear tags, warrants, and analytical arguments.

General:

- Make sure to stay organized — clear roadmaps and signposting is really helpful with making a clear and concise argument.

PF

Extensions: Please extend arguments, not just authors. Anything not extended in summary won't factor into my decision at end of round except defense extended from first rebuttal to first final focus

Rebuttal: Turns that aren't answered in second rebuttal are de facto dropped. Second rebuttal doesn't need to answer weighting that's in the first rebuttal, it can wait until second summary.

Weighing: Weighing is good, it is the first thing I will vote on. Scope means nothing without magnitude.

Cross: Statements made in cross are not inherently binding.

Policy/LD:

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I will vote for anything well-run. You need a clear ROB so I know what I’m voting for at the end of the round. Come into the round prepared for T and arguments that the K is not compelling within the debate framework.

CPs: I have no problem with a CP, but they require a clear net benefit over the affirmative plan and there should be a good defense on a permutation if one is argued by the affirmative.

T: Topicality can be a voter, but it requires standards and voters as well as a clear violation of in round abuse.

Ks: Kritiks are good when they have a proper link chain, impact and alt. Make sure that if you choose to run a Kritik, you understand what the alt is and can explain how the alt solves.

Theory: I am comfortable with high level theory debates. If you choose to make theory arguments, make sure you focus on arguing how your interpretation is better than your opponent and argue comparative offense calculus.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, my ballot, or want to include me in email chains (please do), my email is willclark813@outlook.com

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.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

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 at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing 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 college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D 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. 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 10 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, so 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. 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

“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

"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 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

“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 fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this 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 seventeen 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 roadmap 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.

P.F.

The biggest thing is to debate P.F., don't treat it like policy. Please be clear about when you are switching contentions and be sure to weigh your impacts clearly, don't assume that us judges are making the same connections that you are. If you run a one contention case, please have strong links. Please spell out your impacts, Imperialism isn't an impact, you need to tell me why imperalism is bad. As a judge I won't let my background influince my decision, but that does meen you need to tell me exactly what your impacts meens in terms of qountifiable impacts, number of deaths, cost of monye, increce in crime, global destabilisation, that kind of thing.

Congress:

I've been judging Congress for 6 years now, and of course, all the basic things are important: good projection, good variation in vocal tone and volume for emphasis, and most importantly, a cohesive, original argument. In addition, please be respectful of your competitors; assertive speech styles are fine, but avoid ad hominem attacks. Similarly, when asking questions, don't interrupt the answerer when they haven't even finished a sentence yet; again, find the line between assertive and just plain rude. Make sure your introduction doesn't have a jarring shift in tone when compared to the rest of your speech. Lots of people enjoy funny intros, but they don't really work if you give a speech about war crimes, for example. Crystalizing is good, but if you have an entire speech that's just crystalizing, you end up with something that is more like 6 30-second long speeches instead of a single 3-minute speech, so don't go overboard with it. Make sure if you use the same arguments as a previous speaker, you do something new with it, or go in greater depth in a specific aspect of the argument. Otherwise, all you're doing is telling the judges that you thought the previous speaker did a really good job.

A smaller thing, but it still bugs me when it happens, please don't use debate lingo in congress when it doesn't make grammatical sense without a debate background, for example "sqo solves" is not something that makes sense unless you do debate and this isn't the place for that.

Email: Oscarh.rich@gmail.com

Email for cards, cases and what you need to send me: emma.sasser9@gmail.com

This makes it very easy for me to follow along in your case! Please send me your stuff!

I don't know prog debate, so if you choose a prog case run at your own risk. I am a trad judge.

I never did debate in High school or college.

Do not spread, its hard for me to follow.

Be passionate!! If you disagree with your position in your debate I should not be able to tell. Please make sure that there is clash in your debates.

You are able to time yourself, I will be timing you as well.

I do not care if you sit or stand, do what is comfortable for you.

Please be respectful during the debate, only use your phone when it is pertinent to the debate/timing, and then just use your common sense and be respectful in general.

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

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

Congress at the bottom.

PF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a former policy debater and judged it throughout college and after. I'm happily returning to judging after an absence. LD is new for me in 2023.

IN GENERAL:

I aim to adjudicate based on what you present to me (i.e., tabula rasa), but I'm not partial to kritik about debate itself; that seems like changing the rules of the game mid-play to me. Counterplans are fine, but so are generic DAs; just give me vigorous clash with whatever you have. I love to hear analysis and rationale.

As far as jargon goes, I prefer you to approach it like you would citations for publication: i.e., give me the full title/headline/name upon first mention, then abbreviate/slang it for the rest of the time. For instance: "Capitalism Kritik" becomes "Cap-K", but "IDF" could be either "Israel Defense Forces," "Insurance Development Forum," "International Diabetes Foundation," "International Dairy Foundation," "Immune Deficiency Foundation," and so on—hence why I'd like the terms before abbreviation. I've been around a long time and have a head full of these things, so please help a girl out.

I flow every speech thoroughly—including CX—so I appreciate organization and signposting a lot, even if it's as brief as, "I'm starting with DAs, then I'm going case."

I'm fine with spreading, as long as you are able to enunciate well; speed comes with preparedness. If you become nigh intelligible, I'll probably wave my hand in a "slow down" motion and pull a weird face. Incorrect pronunciation without qualifying reason [I'm not referring to dialect or folks with a primary language other than English, but more the "nuclear vs nuculer" variety] is a pet peeve, but not basis for judgment; it just makes me think you haven't spent enough time with your cards. Please: learn how to pronounce the names of the people and places in your cards! Personal names can be hard and cause you to stumble in your speech (and in turn lose your place), while country names you should be familiar with already (for the most part).

I want you to use your rebuttals to sum up why I should vote for you, to give me your analysis of the entire round and why your side has clearly proven superior in this argument. I don't want to be pummeled with, "This is a voter! And this is a voter! You must vote XYZ! And you must vote XYZ!" over and over, ad nauseum. That does nothing to convince me. I'll decide what is a voter; you just give me explanation of why that particular point is so important to the debate and your interpretation is the correct one.

Also, not every single piece of evidence you have—addressed by the other side or not—is a voter. Please don't use them as blunt instruments to hammer at me. Evidence backs up your argument; if the argument isn't sound to begin with, that evidence is just going to dangle in space—not carry the entire round (in most cases). I don't want to you to waste your precious rebuttal time repeating the empty phrase, "This card is a voter! This card is a voter, too!" Sure, tell me they've dropped arguments or have acccepted your framework, or even that your card is more recent or from a more reputable source. But if the other side has dismantled your entire case, why should I care if they didn't touch that extra card sitting under your supposed impacts? That will not win the round. Rationale as to why that one dropped card is a linchpin for the entire argument might.

I don't tolerate rudeness. This is an exciting, educational activity that is meant to help everyone become more confident public speakers, dogged researchers, constructive verbal combatants, and robust thinkers. If you demean, mock, get snippy, or cop an attitude with your opponent, I will dock speaker points and may weigh against you, depending upon severity of offense.

FEEDBACK: I don't give much verbal feedback aside from disclosing whom I find for; I'm too busy weighing my flow and typing up the ballot. I may not have all the reasons for decision sorted into complete, deliverable rationale yet. It's not meant to be a slight or intimidating—I just have a lot to convey and not much time to do it. I will give brief insight into why I voted the way I did when judging online, but it won't be extensive for the prior reasons. I believe it's my duty to provide you with a thorough, written record of the round, which will be more reliable for future reference than recollecting a quick discussion.

POLICY SPECIFIC: During CX, you should be able to answer questions directed to you; an interjection by your partner is fine, but they are not the one under CX so I expect you to pick up the burden. Negs, If you want to run more than one T argument, fine—but make sure you're actually following through and *debating* them, not using them as verbal caltrops tossed in front of the Aff and abandoned like chaff. Don't waste our time, please.

Personal Background: I debated four years in Wisconsin. I competed at NCFLs and NSDAs 4 times each. Most of my experience is in PF, Congress, and extemp but I have some experience with other events.

Include me on Email Chains please: rspors25@gmail.com

The vast majority of the rounds I have judged this year are policy rounds. That being said, don't spread in front of me. If you are spreading, share a speech doc, but just please don't. If you are running a K, T, or CP, you better be ready to explain it well (For example if you are running a T don't just rattle off the tags Education, Time abuse etc. Explain these arguments to me well). I tend to prefer 1 or 2 well reasoned arguments over 15 tags with no links or warrants.

TLDR: Have good ethics, Trust the Flow, Don't be a jerk.

Policy:

If you have received a blast and I am your policy judge, please know my experience is in PF/LD in a very traditional district. A fairly low level of Speed is okay but if I can't hear you I can't flow you. I will keep a flow and I will vote on the flow. If you are running a theory or a K it will take work to convince me but I am not against these types of arguments. Topicality or Framework arguments are things I am far more familiar with and I also tend to find them more relevant to the round than other theory arguments. In essence, convince me that your plan would work, and is the best solution. If you are the neg, Convince me they are wrong.

PF: Constructive: Speed is fine as long as you are clear. If you are unclear I will stop flowing and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot. I competed in a very traditional district so that is what I am most familiar with. If you are running some sort of progressive debate, make it a strong case. I think progressive arguments are overused in PF. If you are running something weird, explain it well and convince me. I think debate is ultimately an event based in convincing your opponents and judge. Convince me your argument isn't so weird.

Rebuttal: I want a line by line. 2nd rebuttal should include responses to 1st rebuttal otherwise it is dropped. That being said, don't be toxic and attempt to spread people out of rounds by arguing you should win the round based on a dropped third subpoint on your sixth response to their observation. Win the round via solid argumentation not some trick.

Summary: Summary is the hardest speech in a round. As a general rule, if something isn't in your summary it better not be in your final focus. Summary is a speech for crystalizing your arguments into something that can be used in your final focus and weighing. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH. If you don't weigh, you make me weigh. You will be sad because I may not weigh your voters favorably, I will be sad because you made me do more work. Don't make everyone sad. Weigh! Also don't just say "we win on timeframe and scope and yada yada yada" I can do that. Tell me why, under the established framework you are winning in a way that means you must win the round. If you want to use all those fancy weighing words, don't just shout the buzzwords at me. Tell me why I should be deciding the round in terms of timeframe, magnitude etc.

Final Focus: Give me the voters. Tell me why you're winning the important points of the round and tell me why that means you're winning the round. The final focus is not "Rebuttal: Reprise" (nor is the summary for that matter). Please do not just word vomit every card your side read the whole round. Tell me why you won.

LD:

Values and Criterions are important. Treat them like they are important. Whichever value wins out is how I am going to weigh the round. Make your arguments in terms of the values and weigh under the criteria.

Lincoln Douglas is a debate of values and morals. Keep that in mind.

Progressive debate is fine just make it make sense.

Everything I said above about speed, argumentation and weighing remains true for LD.

Congress:

1. This event is called congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving. Use your speech times to advance an argument, to directly clash with other speakers, and to persuade the audience to your side. That being said while I do want a well-reasoned debate, you are also essentially cosplaying as senators so there is some room for theatrics and if done well, this can add to your speech. A boring speech is not very persuasive.
2. SPEED! Speed does not belong in this event whatsoever. You are senators persuading the body to vote one way or another on a bill not policy debaters.
3. I would rather you give no speech at all than a repetitive, pre-written speech that takes time from other debaters who want to bring up new points.
4. Questioning periods, points, and motions weigh heavily on my ballot. Use these to your advantage. Answering questions well is HUGE for me. Effective use of parli pro is impressive to see, but incorrect use is a big disadvantage.
5. I will rank the PO as we are instructed to do. If you are an excellent PO you are likely in the running for the top spot in my rankings. If you are a poor PO you will likely find yourself near the bottom. Being a good PO is about running a fair and efficient chamber. I want that chamber to run like a well oiled machine.
6. Evidence, Follow the same ethics and evidence things I have stated below.

General Things for Everyone:

The Flow: In this round the flow is going to be king. If I can't understand you I can't flow you and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot.

Critique: I will disclose if they let me. I will give a oral critique if they let me. Everything will be on the ballot. I know how valuable that feedback is to coaches and competitors alike. If you are unhappy with my oral critique, look to my ballot for more information. If you have any questions, ask them. I am more than happy to give more advice/feedback. If you are just postrounding trying to argue about my decision. Don't, that's annoying.

Evidence Ethics:IMPORTANT I tend to be truth over tech. There is nothing that irritates me more than shoddy evidence standards. This is an educational activity and if there is a card to which the content is in question it is possible I will call for said card. Be prepared. I want to be included in your email chains (rspors25@gmail.com).

Cross: Don't be abusive. Be assertive. I think cross is one of the most informative parts of a debate round. I will be actively listening but not actively flowing. If something is conceded in cross, it is conceded. That being said, it still needs to be brought up in speeches to make my ballot. If something important happens during cross, explicitly tell me "Judge write that down" I will but then I will expect you to elaborate in a speech.

Speaker points: I will probably be pretty generous with speaks. If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, Antisemitic, or anything else bad, expect the speaks to reflect that. Cross is a really good way to impress me and show me that you are a 30 pt speaker.

Background

Hey there, I'm Jack (He/Him). I was a PF debater for 4 years and did Congressional Debate for 3 years; I competed in local and nat circuit so I will generally know what you are talking about. I have judged PF, LD, And Congress locally and nat circuit.

*Online Debate*

For any online tournaments this year (if we have any) we all have tech issues so if you/your opponent drops out from the call please be respectful as we wait for them to rejoin. Please make sure to have hard copies of at least your constructive, cards if possible, it saves a lot of time if internet goes out.

Also, please be mindful of your speed/clarity online. Audio quality over the computer is not always the greatest. I won't stop you but if I can't understand you, I won't flow it.

All Debate

I don't often pick up extinction level impacts, if you are running them please have a clear and strong link chain from event A to extinction otherwise none of it will end up on my flow.

I do not flow CX, I am listening to it but it is a place for you to question and receive answers, not make arguements. If your opponent makes a concession in CX and you want it flowed, you must tell me.

I will more than likely know what you are talking about but present it to me as if I don't. Your debates should be able to boil down to arguements that can easily be understood by a parent judge or someone of the general public. It is not a major voting factor of mine but clarity in arguements and good voters will aid my decision and help your speaks.

Speaker Points: Some judges like them, some do not. I treat them as if everyone starts at 30 points and get detracted for things like clarity, decorum, full use of speech times, etc. Keep in mind that they are not a major factor in the decision and only truly matter for tiebreakers AND they are subjective. Overall, I aire on the high side of speaker points and rarely award less than a 27.5.

PF

I am ok with speed but if it sounds like you can't breathe that's bad (air is good for you) and I probably won't understand you.

I like frameworks and framework debates but I won't be mad if you don't have one. If you do propose one, I weigh Framework and FW clash very highly in the round. If you don't, I assume a CBA

In your constructive, if you have any overly complicated theory or extensive link chains, please take the time to explain them. If you just spew cards at me or tell me a theory without reasoning, I don't have a reason to flow it

Summary and FF: I know everyone says it but weighing and voters!! Don't just give me cards and say your world was better, please tell me why I should prefer your card over theirs and specifically how the outcome is better in your world. In FF make sure to recap all of your partners summary points and don't spend the majority of your time attacking your opponents. Voters, Voters, Voters, breakdown exactly what you want me to vote on for the round.

LD

I expect that both debaters have a clearly laid out value and that there is good clash on which value hold higher priority.

LD is NOT Policy. Depending on your circuit Plans/Counter plans may or may not be allowed, if they are allowed I will take them into consideration (same as running K's, spreading, other policy types) but I'm not very fond of it. Your arguments should be based in value debates, not spreading out your competitors or running CPs when there is no plan in the first place. Please keep LD as "LD" as possible.

As in PF, I will not automatically flow CX, if something comes up you want flowed, tell me.

If you don't provide enough analysis, you can't expect your opponent to respond to it and neither can I. Make sure your ideas and evidence are fully explained and the links are clear.

Again if you spread me out or run things so progressive, I am probably not picking you up. I will say Speed one time if I am having trouble understanding you. If I can not understand beyond that, I will stop flowing.

Something new to me: Ideas on disclosure. I think it kind of ruins the spirit of debate, it allows you to everything on the line-by-line prepped out, and can spread 7 pages to me with no real meaning behind it (for me). I of course understand that disclosure is now common practice but if you are running T-shells on disclosure/contact disclosure you are going to be immediatly dropped by me; I find it abusive and against the spirit of the event.

At the end, tell me why you win the round, what are your voters? Make it clear to me what I am voting on.

Policy

If I am your policy judge there has been a grave mistake and/or there was no other choice. In this scenario I am no different than a parent judge who has never watched a round before and I wish all of us the best of luck. I'm sorry :)

Congress

Having multiple speeches is of course important. With that said, I would much rather have you give me 1/2 really good speeches that add something to the debate rather than repeating what has been said 3 times just to get an extra speech in. Please don't give me fluff just so you are on my ballot more than your fellow Congress people.

Don't be afraid to give an opposing speech when no one else will, I'm not expecting it to be perfect but I would love to see someone step up and put new arguements in place than hear "although the chair frowns on a one sided debate" 6 times in a session.

Overall have fun though, its one of the most "free" and open for interpretation events in my opinion and the bills can lead to some very interesting discourse. Keep it respectful and structure your arguements well but feel free to have some "way-out-there" links and arguements.

I am a PF debater and Debate judge by heart so I would like to see some type of weighing or world analysis past authorship/first negation; it shows me that you as a Congress person are analysing the bill and debate, not just throwing a speech at me with no relevance to anything previously said.

Other Important Things

1) Don't be rude. To your opponent, partner, or me. I won't stand for any yelling or disrespect to each other. If you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc I can guarantee you that you will not be winning the round.

2) I will time your speeches but please try and keep your own time, especially for CX. If you would like me to time anything for you and/or give time call outs/signals I will, but for the most part I do not want to intervene.

3)Don't commit evidence violations. I know that's kinda how debate is supposed to work but it's a long process that neither I nor you want to deal with so lets be smart please. With that said if your opponent does commit an evidence violation, don't be afraid to call it out. We all want things to be fair.

4) I will disclose after rounds anytime I am allowed to. I default to a brief Oral FRD with in-depth personal comments on the ballet. If you would like more explanation as to my decision in-round (time permitting), I am okay with post-rounding but please be respectful and brief if you choose to do so.

5) Have fun! Yes, debate is primarily a serious event but a little humor can break up the rounds and is appreciated.

If you have any questions/comments/concerns feel free to reach out. If you want to include me in any email chains, cool. If not that's okay too. If you ask me before round what my preferences are, I will briefly explain but be sad that you did not read my paradigm :(

email: jdsteele@uwm.edu

Good Luck and Have Fun!

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:

umstotd@elmbrookschools.org

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.

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.