Tabroom.com

Jim Sauer Invitational at La Crosse Central

2023 — NSDA Campus, WI/US

LD/PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Will Clark Neenah High School

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 10:58 AM CST

General Stuff:

Experience: I debated for three years in Policy Debate for Neenah High School (WI) and I have been judging LD, PF, Congress, 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.Discriminatory, hateful, and harmful language will not be tolerated in rounds.

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.

Congress:

I hope to see each speaker taking a position on legislation and providing some questions throughout the round. I prefer to avoid one-sided debates, but I understand they can happen. Check for sponsorship speeches before determining the order for rounds. I will vote POs when they do a good job or if the tournament encourages voting POs. I have a limited experience running parli, but my general goal is to make sure that rules are followed and everyone is able to have a productive debate.

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

Sophia Dolan Janesville Parker

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 5:45 AM CST

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)

Robert Elder Middleton

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:32 AM MST

My debate background is in Parliamentary Debate in a program strongly influenced by policy debate. What I look for is clear structure and sound arguments, avoiding fallacies, and using credible evidence to support claims.

In round, being able to compare and evaluate evidence and to impact arguments to the round. Tell me why your argument matters.

Another key element of a good debate is CLASH. Attack and defend your arguments, impact them to the criteria and value, tell me which one should be weighted the most in my evaluation of the round and why.

Be nice and have fun!

PF Debate Judge Paradigm

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Enter names of schools you coach for, judge for, etc.

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? Enter type of debate (LD, PF, Policy) and number of years. Otherwise, put N/A.

How often do you judge public forum debate? Can say every weekend, few times a year, etc.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? no

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Arguments, but it is meant to be a lay style of delivery

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? Give me voters

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? If you think it is your winning argument, extend it and also make it a voter.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Evidence is to support arguments,

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

If you make a claim, link it to the res/argument made, and warrant why it applies. Support your claims with reasoning and evidence. The stronger it is, the more I can weigh it.

Brooke Erickson Whitefish Bay High School

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 1:11 AM PST

**Less than 5 debates judged on this policy topic so no acronyms without explanation first plz**

Policy Paradigm (LD at bottom)

Currently head coach of Whitefish Bay High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin since September 2022

Graduated HS in 2014, policy debater from 2010-2014 (2N/1A) with some national circuit experience.

Assistant coached LD and Policy at:

Central Valley HS (Spokane, WA 2014-2016)

Capitol HS (Boise, ID 2016-2017)

Former co-head coach at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin (2017-2020)

In my daily life I am a lawyer.

--Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Blerickson95@gmail.com

--Overall, I am not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, and I vote for the team that quite literally makes the most sense to me. I am not afraid to take the easy way out if I am given warranted reasons why I should. The harder you make it for me, the more work you make me do, the less likely you are to get my ballot, and I think that makes sense and is fair.

--For the love, please time yourselves.

--Your speaks will increase if you don't spend at ton of time at the beginning of cross ex asking what cards were and weren't read :) (I like flowing!)

--Maybe I am just old and grumpy but, do not wear your headphones in round, at any time, once the debate starts. Not in one ear only, not because "you're just the 1N", not because you are the 2A and don't want to listen to the 1AC. I think it's rude, pompous, and just plain obnoxious. No debater in the world is too important to listen to a full debate. It is so disrespectful to the other team, the judge, and everyone who took time to be at that debate. Ugh. I hate it so much.Headphones on during a debate are an auto 27 or lower. That's all :) *Obviously this does not carry through for online debate!

Quick version

Generally good for:

--DA-case debates

--Cheater counterplan debates

--Politics/elections debates

Not as good for:

--Heavy K debates

--Any type of death good argument (I think death is bad, and we should try to avoid it)

--Baudrillard

--Any strategy that is largely based off of debate being inherently bad/irredeemable

Online debate things:

--I would prefer if the person speaking had their camera on, but I am obviously understanding if that cannot happen.

--I keep my camera on for the debate but I turn it off during prep to go sit on my couch and hold my dog. So, please make sure, before you start your speech, I am back on the camera. If I am not and you start, that would be no good.

Longer version

General

--I, for the most part, love this activity, and respect anyone who takes the time and effort to participate. This activity is rigorous, and good for you for even being here. I welcome questions before and after the round. I realize some people won't agree with my decision, and I welcome questions as to how I came to my conclusion. However, what I don't welcome, is blatant disrespect because you disagree with my decision. Slamming your things, muttering rude things under your breath, or screaming at me, won't make me email tab begging to change my ballot.

--I flow on paper, so I need pen time. I understand and follow the debate better this way, but that also means I am not writing everything down verbatim, so if you have arguments you think are important, sit on them.

--I am very expressive. I don't have a poker face. You should be able to tell if I am unhappy or not.

--Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You will lose immediately and receive the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give u

--Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing/emailing (I can tell if you’re flashing/emailing or prepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll start your speech time)

--If you clip and it's recorded, you lose. It needs to be recorded.

--I will not evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Topic Thoughts

Very few judged on this topic. Plz don't use acronyms without explaining them first. I coached LD and PF all year, so assume I am new on the topic. Very familiar with policy debate, very not familiar with the topic.

K debate

--The role of the judge is to decide who did the best debating. The role of the ballot is to tell Tabroom who won.

--Fiat isn't real and that's fine.

--This is my area of less familiarity. Although I have fairly frequently found myself in the back of clash of civ debates, I am less familiar with critical arguments. IR K's such as cap, security, gender, etc. I do not have a problem understanding. I have a harder time understanding high theory, philosophy debates. Pleeease do not assume I have read your author. Do not let this dissuade you from reading your bread and butter K arguments in front of me, just know I need more explanation. I think in good debates this can even just be done in a cross ex.

--I need a reason why the aff is bad. I often find myself voting on the perm because I do not know why the aff is specifically bad for causes more bad things to happen. I am not saying this can't be done, it definitely can be done, and should be.

--I am not here to change how you debate, but it would be disingenuous for me to say my experiences in debate have not affected how I am used to and comfortable evaluating debates. That being said, I tend to think speech times are good, and an hour and a half of discussion is not as good. If we are going to throw speech times out the window, I need to know what the structure is for the remainder of the debate. I.e. when we are done, how I should evaluate arguments in this new format, etc. If there is no structure, I need to know why not having a structure for the debate is good. I do my very best to not intervene, and if the debate devolves into a discussion, the only time I will intervene is to say when time is up for the round. It would be GREAT if that was done for me by one of the teams. I try to talk in debate rounds *literally* as little as possible but I also do not want to make the tournament run behind.

--I have evaluated many framework debates, but I think I am about even voting for and against it. That being said, I think predictable limits are my point of most persuasion. But do what u do.

K affs

--I need to know what the aff does. I just do.

--I do not necessarily need you to defend hypothetical USfg action, but I really appreciate topic relevance.

Theory

Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. If you drop these things, you lose*: Conditionality, ASPEC. Flow! Don't just follow the speech doc! Ask what reasons are to reject the team in cx!

*I think sometimes cross applications are sufficient. Or aff outweighs arguments for critical affs. It literally just depends how the debate shakes out, but I would just try to answer them explicitly the first time.

I think fairness can be an internal link or an impact depending on how you spin it. Tell me how you want me to view and evaluate fairness.

Topicality

I have recently realized that I take a little more than the average person to vote on T. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. Slow down on T debates plz.

For me to vote on topicality, I need: a topical version of the aff (doesn't need to solve the aff, it just needs to show an alternate, topical version of the discussion), a list of topical aff's under your interpretation, a list of what you were deprived of in the debate because of the aff's untopicality OR a reason why I should vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans

I’m a big fan. Counterplans should be competitive and have a solvency advocate, in my perfect world. But hey, I am becoming more and more okay with counterplans that do not have a solvency advocate for some reason.

The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise. I really like smart pics/word pics.

My mantra has always been, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. Cheating counterplans can get the job done and if there is no theoretical objection to reject the argument, you may be in trouble. That being said, compelling reasons why that specific cheating counterplan is bad can sometimes convince me to reject the argument. Again, it's ~debatable~

*The only counterplan I think is silly and likely won't vote for is a PIC out of the ballot. Never got it, never will, likely will always think it's silly.

Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the federal government key? Also, I would really like if permutations were more than just "Do both" at the end of the debate, but if the neg never presses you on what this means, I will likely give the aff a lot of leeway throughout the debate on what that means/how it functions. This is important--negative teams are deciding what the permutation is and how it functions for the aff and it is just destroying the aff. Tell me what your perm means and how it functions, if you let the neg do it for you I can bet it won't turn out well for you.

I am hearing a lot of "perm shields the link to the net benefit so it solves". WHY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY. HOW. WHY AND HOW. I am begging you to give me some sort of permutation explanation.

That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it. I will kick the counterplan for the negative, if it's conditional, unless I am given a reason not to by the aff.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage has: uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. 2 card disads make me sad and I am immediately skeptical of them.

Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are basically necessary to my ballot. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff.

Case

Engage the case! Do case debate! Debates are won or lost here, in every form of debate.

LD Paradigm

I debated at two LD tournaments in high school: Nat quals and NFL (now NSDA?) nationals my junior year. I coached LD for 3 years before coming to Homestead. I have been coaching LD for the past 3 years. I have coached/judged very traditional, value-criterion LD debate, and I have also coached/judged progressive LD debate. I am truly fine with either. For more progressive LD debate, my policy paradigm applies. A couple caveats:

--T or theory is not an RVI. I realize the time skew in LD debate. T or theory is not an RVI. I will vote on theory, just not silly ones.

--Shorter speeches than in policy, so I think a bunch of short off-case positions are less preferable than less, more in-depth off-case positions. But do what u need to do.

--Tricks? nah

--Meta-theory? nah

--Cutting evidence from debate blogs? nah

--In-depth, educational debates about the topic? Yeah!!!

Have fun!! :)

Fridarose Hamad Brookfield Central High School

Leslie Harris Whitefish Bay High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 7:41 AM CST

I debated policy in Texas in the late 1990s, and then I debated at Northwestern. I have a PhD in rhetoric and argumentation, and I teach at UWM in the Communication Department. I have been judging debate in WI since 2018, and I started coaching in 2020.

I can flow at most speeds as long as you are clear, but I appreciate it when debaters slow down and explain and weigh arguments. I'm open to all well made arguments. Please remember that a tag/claim is not a full argument. I appreciate clash and strong argument development. I follow the debaters' lead for reasons for voting, but saying that "I outweigh" (for example) is not an argument-- you need to explain why you outweigh and why that matters. For PF especially, please remember that the affirmative has the burden of proof.

Update for 9/21: Please slow down for virtual debate.

updates 1/21:

I don't think that true objectivity is possible, so I won't claim to be tabula rasa. However, I do my best to remain open to arguments and set aside my biases. I am not open to hearing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments. I am also a professional rhetorician, so you will have a challenging time persuading me that discourse doesn’t matter (although the relationships between the material and discursive is up for debate). I’m fine with kritiks, plans, counterplans, framework debates, util impacts debates. I don’t see the logic in how the neg can run a counterplan unless the aff has run a plan, but I’ll listen to the arguments justifying. I’m not strong in classical philosophy, so slow down and explain those arguments. I teach and publish engaging critical theory, so I am stronger in those arguments. If it’s helpful to see my list of publications and classes that I’ve taught, my faculty webpage is somewhat up to date (but I’m really doubt that would be helpful).

I judge based on my flow, and I tend to have a good flow. If you tell me that an argument is a reason for voting, I mark that on my flow and spend time thinking about that in my decision. If you don’t give me a reason for voting, I’ll do my best to sort through the arguments and make a decision. I adore when debaters number their arguments and keep their arguments organized. I will always priorities flowing the tag and key arguments in the card before the author’s name. So if you are extending evidence, it’s a good rule of thumb to give the author’s name and a shortened tag (instead of saying “extend Jones ’20,” say “extend Jones ’20, the impact is global warming,” or if you have been numbering, “extend number 3, Jones ’20).

Speed: I'm fine with speed, and for most debaters, I have had no problem flowing. I’ve been getting some audio glitches in virtual debate. As long as we are virtual, please keep those tags super clear. I've also noticed that as I get tired, I start missing some arguments when debaters are going fast in rebuttals. I'll do my best to keep up, and I don't penalize debaters for going fast. If you want to make sure I don't miss something important, emphasize it clearly.

Bottom line: tell me why you win and how I should make my decision. Please don't let me try to figure out how to weigh competing arguments because that's when debaters start finding me to be unpredictable. Make your case for how I should weigh those arguments.

David Henning Sheboygan South High School

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 1:58 AM CST

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2025 Wisconsin State Debate Tournament Tournament Edition

Version 3.402, Date 1/16/2025

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 38/0/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 553/77/2103

Years Judging: 41

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

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and in college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. I also coached college debate--4 years of NDT/CEDA tournaments, with a few dreadful world schools format tournaments mixed in--in the 2010s. This is my fifteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach. This is my eighth year of coaching LD debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

LD General Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jovan Hernandez Homestead High School

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:41 AM CST

Jovan Hernandez - LD Debate Judge

School Affiliation - Homestead High School

Email: chidori4444@gmail.com

Experience with Debate: I have competed in LD Debate for 3 years of my high school career and have gone on to compete in both State and Nationals. With that being said, I have 2 years of judging, so I hope to give out insightful and constructive ballots that'll help in the future. Also, to make sure, I am NOT a policy or PF judge, so, if I do judge that category, excuse my ignorance.

How I Judge:

Speed - I do not like speed, but as long as you're not spreading and going at a pace that Eminem would be jealous of, then we're good.

Framework - Your framework should relate to your case meaning that how your case goes has to be able to link into both your value and criterion. Frameworks should be relatively easy to understand and be easy to debate, however, if you're able to explain a hard-to-understand framework in rebuttals, then go for it.

Theory Cases - Do not do them. If you do a Theory case, do so at your own risk because I have little understanding of them and if you can't clearly define each parts of the case and how your case is better, Im not likely to pick it up.

K's - The most crucial thing for me is that the alternative has to be able to solve your opponent's harms and whatever you present as being flawed within the Status quo, if you can't do that and the opponent is able to argue that your alternative doesn't work, then it will be weighed heavily against you.

Clash - Clash should be both a battle of analysis and card attacks. Addressing the evidence within a card and the argument that surrounds the cards presented is crucial, so, being able to explain each card's faults and the faults of the case is needed, otherwise it's two debaters spewing facts(which do not care about your feelings) at each other.

Topicality - There has to be something that the debater (either NEG or AFF) has done within their cases that goes against the resolution meaning that the debater cannot use this argument because it's going against the resolution and can be disregarded.

Evidence Reading - This is absolutely HUGE. When reading your evidence, please, I mean PLEASE, read your tag, author, and date BEFORE you read the actual evidence. If you read your tag in conjunction with the evidence, it all blends together until you get to your author citation, so, it'll sound all the same and having a subheading for the evidence allows everyone to clearly define what card you are reading and make the read be a lot more structured. This is just something that helps me out with flowing your arguments better and keeping everything in a orderly fashion

Christian James Vel Phillips Memorial

Chanel Kreuser West Bend

Brian Nelson Middleton

Karina Perez Hire

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 11:32 AM CST

WSDT 2025 TL;DR: I've judge PF a few times in WI. I am more than capable in judging the round. I'll give a brief rfd after rounds (if the tournament time permits). I think having a framework/observation isn't necessary in PF but if you do have one, pls don't just drop it after constructive. You mention the observation for a reason, talk about it! Weigh everything you find important and want me to get out in the round in summary! Don't run anything offensive or I'll automatically drop you. Provide a trigger warning (if needed) out of respect for everyone in the round Have fun!

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

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

Long Version:

Background: I debated for Golda Meir for four years in LD. I am a recent alumni from UW-Madison. I majored in Legal Studies and Chicane/Latine Studies, with certificates in Public Policy and Criminal Justice. I currently am applying to law school so if you have any questions on college or just interested in discussing about the legal field, pls don't hesitate to ask via email or in person. My debate experience ranges from local circuit to national circuit tournaments. I've judged a multiple of tournaments, so please treat me like any other past debater! I don't judge that frequently anymore so I might ask what the resolution is.

General In-Round Things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Debate

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

Dhruv Prakash Edgewood High School

Nathanael Ren Brookfield East

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 7:47 PM EST

NCFL update 5/24/2024

Hey, I'm Nathanael. I did CX decently for 4 years in HS, ok with most things (incl. speed), will vote for anything comprehensible and logical (and will vote path of least resistance / requires least intervention). Just make sure to explain well Ks that aren't stock. Also don't try to adapt too much to me. I hold some opinions, but those will only matter if the debate is incredibly unclear / I need to intervene -- I prefer to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Now for the longer version.

Bio:

I debated Policy for Brookfield East (WI) for 4 years, and won state 2 of those years. I've also had some success in outrounds at some natcir tournaments (including at NCFLs). I also did Congress and Extemp and got 2nd and 3rd in state, respectively, but who cares.

I currently am a student at Duke majoring in CS/ECE/Math. I'm on the Duke debate team (it's BP / British parliamentary format).

I haven't judged at all this season, so please (at least the first time) fully say out or include in speech doc what acronyms are etc.

Conflicts: Brookfield East (until 2027), Marquette EZ (LD).

Email is 0.char_pen@icloud.com, feel free to email for questions, clarifications, etc. or for the email chain, but I much prefer Speechdrop.

Overarching phil:

The primary point of high school CX debate is to gain skills that you will use beyond debate, and it takes the form of / secondarily is a game. If, to win the game, you "convince" me (i.e., win on the flow in the debate) that debate is not a game / whatever, totally cool, I'll buy it.

To that extent, that means that any norms that I think facilitate skill-development, I'll like (e.g., disclosure). Also, if it means our debate is less accessible to the public, so be it (that's the point of PF). I.e., I'm ok with spreading and all that stuff, but ofc make sure you're clear -- a bright line needs to be drawn somewhere -- and don't spread analytics without a speech doc. If I miss it, that's your problem, not mine. I'll clear you at least a few times before you can probably tell I stop flowing.

At the same time, I believe that the process of gaining skills or playing the game must respect basic principles, i.e., be respectful, be a good person -- these are important irl skills too! (and perhaps more so than any skills you'll gain from debate.) Sure, there are things you could do to increase your chances of winning the game that isn't the "right" thing to do, and please don't do those things -- debate should be respectful and civil, not cutthroat and trying to get every advantage one can get. E.g., don't spread against some novice team registered in a varsity division for some reason -- they're not getting anything out of the debate, you're not either (if you play more "fairly" you'll still get the W and probably higher speaks, and practice with lays?). But this doesn't mean play ultraconservative or don't introduce arguments the other team has never heard of -- learning new things is good (obviously)! This also means obviously no card clipping, etc. Don't read too much into this paragraph -- just basically so long as you're not overly pretentious or anything in a debate you're obviously winning you'll be ok in front of me.

I find I give pretty high speaks -- and I reward niceness / attitude / not-being-a-jerk.

Thoughts on specific args (the "I like" etc. are obviously outweighed by the flow -- read what you want, try not to read into this stuff too much, these are just FYI):

DAs: I'm always down for a trad DA-Adv debate, and imo (as long as they don't become messy) these are the easiest debates to judge. Just make sure to do some weighing in the 2NR/AR. Ptix / tradeoff DAs in particular I'm good with, elections DAs tho are iffy (not like completely opposed to them tho). I'm also not the hottest on "[insert "authoritarian" country here]" bad DAs -- I find the link chains here to be particularly weak. I find any case turns coming from the DA should be a larger part of the debate.

CPs: I like CPs, especially those similar to the Aff, it tests the Aff team and makes sure they can adequately defend their own Affs, e.g., actor CPs. However, I less prefer more blatantly squirrelly CPs / things the Aff are fully locked into, e.g., consult CPs or delay CPs (these feel mostly the same year-to-year and I'm more partial towards Aff args). Not a fan of 2NC CPs, though. To win the perm (on the aff), just "perm do both" or whatever isn't enough -- explain the lack of mutual exclusivity and how the perm could be an aff, i.e., describe how the perm would work.

Ks: I rather enjoy generic Ks, e.g., cap / set col / etc (perhaps this is a function of where I stand politically). I'm also ok with performance Ks. For anything beyond generics, though, I'd appreciate a decent O/V. I don't think kicking the alt and taking the K as a DA is utilized enough by negs (my thoughts on condo later). Alt debates, though, are important imo and the aff shouldn't assume alt solvency -- e.g., in a cap K, will revolution actually solve capitalism? Specific links are ofc good / preferable as well, I dislike generic topic links.

CP/K theory: I think the neg should probably get at least some condo, but not infinite (a middle ground of 1 or 2 seems reasonable to me). Generally don't like floating PIC/Ks as well. Also I entertain a lot more / have a lower threshold to buy reject the arg etc. instead of reject the team. I also generally do err towards protecting the 1AR against the neg block. Ifiat seems abusive, but idk convince me otherwise.

Theory in general: If the neg asks something, you better be able to clarify in cross or I'll probably buy some spec argument (as long as the neg is within reason, ofc -- they can't ask exactly how many house members will vote for, against, and abstain for example. Otherwise I think in-round violations are totally legit and important to address to ensure accountability and to improve the debate space. In general I'm willing to listen to / buy theory -- it's how we improve debate.

T: I'm cool with T, but it ofc will be harder to win against core affs. That being said, I've found myself to be more partial than most towards extra T (or something of the sort). I've seen T run best where it's run kinda like other stock issues -- i.e., place more emphasis on how they don't meet the definition / the violation, and the impacts are pretty easy to win.

Affs: I'm alright with K affs -- but K affs must be willing to defend against T-USFG, etc. I see too many soft-left Affs. Either make it a K aff (whoah so scary) or run a normal aff please. Imo good soft-left affs are few and far between (I've definitely seen them, though). Tips for beating soft-left affs for the neg -- they almost always involve the state and there is a lot of theory saying how any revolution can't engage the state, and also in general the state is incredibly ineffective. Also they're usually incredibly weak to traditional arguments, e.g,, DAs/CPs, and probably aren't topical.

Ethics violations: A team should be willing to stake the debate on this -- i.e., the debate will boil down to this. If this does happen, then I'll stop the debate, evaluate the complaint, and decide the debate there. Any tournament regulations that may be in place ofc supersede this.

Now that you've read to the end of my paradigm, please go touch some grass. You probably need to :)

Oscar Rich Marquette University High School

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 6:37 AM CST

P.F.

The biggest thing is to debate P.F., don't treat it like policy, meaning don't talk at 500MPH and no crazy "reality is a hologram" type arguments. 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 influence my decision, but that does mean you need to tell me exactly what your impacts mean in terms of quantifiable impacts, number of deaths, cost of money, increase in crime, global destabilization, the kind of thing.

L.D.

I'm a traditional-style debater, meaning I'm not usually a fan of Ks or crazy theory shells; if you run one anyway, be sure to pay some attention to defense; even with a K, you should still respond to their line-by-line arguments. I was a policy debate, and I've been judging LD on the local and national circuit for 3 years, so I'm fine with whatever speed you can do well. One thing that I think LD debaters need to pay more attention to is extending your evidence, too many debaters will just say "Cross-apply my contentions to their DA," and you need to do more then that; you need to actually say how your evidence specific counters theirs and what specific evidence you are citing.

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

Evalynn Russell-Miller Hire

Karishma Santebennur Brookfield East

Timothy Scheffler Vel Phillips Memorial

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:14 AM CST

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.

Aliyah Schlicht La Crosse Central

Jami Severstad Neenah High School

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 9:21 AM CST

I'm a former policy debater and judged it throughout college and after. I'm happily returning to judging after an absence. LD was new for me in 2022. Please include me in your email chain: truckstopnun@gmail.com

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 roadmapping a lot, even if it's as brief as, "I'm starting with DAs, then I'm going case." Likewise, signposting is helpful for my flow.

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 or call out "Clear" if you're particularly mush-mouthed. 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, and I'm also an ally—keep derogatory thoughts to yourself. 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 if the tournament requires it; 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.

Nolan Stearns Janesville Parker

Jack Steele Marquette University High School

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 5:24 PM CST

Background

Hey there, I'm Jack (He/Him).

Head Debate Coach @ Ronald Reagan.

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.

Tech time is not prep time. We operate on an honors system so please be respectful if your opponent is having technical issues to stop debate and prep at that point until they return.

All Debate

I do not flow CX, I am listening to it but it is a place for you to question and receive answers, not make arguments. 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 arguments 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 arguments 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 err on the high side of speaker points and rarely award less than a 28.0.

Policy

TLDR I am NOT okay with high-speed/spreading. Signposting is crucial. Anything else please ask pre-round.

This is my first year coaching and judging policy so please bear with me as I learn.

Most of my preferences carry over from other forms of debate; present to me as if I am a lay judge. This means please be mindful of your speed; I come from a PF/LD background so if I am spread out, I won't be able to flow you. Given the fast-paced nature of the event I will give you one callout: "Speed" and/or "Clear" in the round, after that I will put my pen/laptop down.

Signposting and clearly indicated arguments are crucial to make sure I am getting everything you want on the flow.

Quality > quantity. 7 off at high speed will not gain you any weight on my flow.

If you are unsure of anything in my preferences, please ask me before round and I'll do my best to clarify.

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.

TLDRValue/VC clash is very important. I prefer traditional arguments to policy-esque but will weigh what is presented to me equally without bias. Provide me voters/world analysis.

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 prefer trad. arguments and FW clash. 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 immediately 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.

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 arguments 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 arguments well but feel free to have some "way-out-there" links and arguments.

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 RFD 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: steelej@milwaukee.k12.wi.us

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Simone Toribio La Crosse Central

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2023 at 10:39 AM CST

Please add me to the email chain: simonedebate@gmail.com

I'm not going to look at the card text unless someone in the round calls into question something in the actual text of a card, so please explain the warrants of your card yourself if you want me to evaluate it!

Background

I'm currently a 4th year undergraduate at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities majoring in Computer Science and Statistics. Debate-wise, I'm the former captain of the La Crosse Central High School Policy Debate Team. I did debate for all four years of high school strictly in policy. Note that I haven't competed in competitive debate for about 4 years now, so please keep that in mind. I like to be positive with everyone I meet, so feel free to loosen up and have fun!

If I happen to be judging your PF or LD round, please understand that I have a strictly policy background. I consider myself somewhat capable of evaluating any argument, so there shouldn't be much of an issue. However, if there's something very PF/LD specific, I'd make sure you'd explain it more plainly to me.

Judging Philosophy

I will vote on what I'm told to vote on in the round. In other words, role of the ballot and framework is important! For example, if the neg has a killer nuclear war DA that they win almost 100%, but the aff totally wins framework and tells me to vote for the team that solves best for real world structural violence, I will vote aff.

Arguments evaluated at the end must be pulled through the whole debate. If a team calls out that an argument was dropped in the block/1AR and they're right, I'm not evaluating it. In general, you need to point out that the opponent dropped the argument if you want me to drop it. If you don't, I will generally evaluate it as if it wasn't dropped if your opponents bring it up again later. This holds especially true if you address the dropped argument as if it wasn't (i.e., you have responses to the argument in your speech). The only major exception is that, if the 2ar pulls through an argument that was obviously dropped in the 1ar, I'm not evaluating it if I notice it. This is because the negative has no chance to call this out.

That being said, I will vote on any argument if its argued well and is actually won in round. My political and philosophical biases should not play a role in my decision.

Round Rules

Open CX is fine, just make sure whoever is supposed to be doing the CX or supposed to be CXed is doing most of the talking. If not, speaks are going down.

I will start prep more or less when you say you're starting and stopping. You should start prep when you start working on an argument and you should stop it when you are saving the file for sending. Please don't take forever sending files. I'm pretty generous with time, so don't abuse it. If I or someone else catches you stealing prep, I'm starting prep and docking speaks. Rule of thumb, if you can, please take your hands off your computer/pen when prep stops if you aren't the one sending the file.

Do not be racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, etc. People of all different identities are welcome in this space. If you have a problem with that, you can leave the round.

Be nice. Really, that's it. Debate should be a fun activity and debaters should leave a round being happy and being friends with their opponents. I don't want to see harassment or insults, both in round and out of round. You're losing speaks if you do that. I'm also probably going to be more empathetic towards the team being harassed/insulted, so I probably might subconsciously give them more credit in their arguments. So, even if you only care about my ballot, it would still benefit you to be respectful of the other team. I'm the last judge you should be making snarky comments at the other team in front of. Be courteous, and understand that everyone deserves respect.

Tech

No, I don't know all abbreviations or debate jargon. if you wanna be safe, take the time to explain the more sophisticated jargon or abbreviations if it's crucial to your arguments later in the round.

Speed is usually OK, but I can get lost if you either go too fast or you aren't signposting well. I had OK speed as a debater myself, but I was never really that good at it, so please keep that in mind. Speed on cards is a-OK, just make sure differentiate and slow down a bit on tags so I know what's going on. Analytics/explanation/non-carded arguments are another beast. Please slow down for these. You don't need to speak unbearably slowly, but don't speak so fast that words start getting slurred or missed. My tolerance for speed is not bad, but if there's a key argument to your whole argument, you should definitely slow down for that (good practice for any sort of discussion, really). Rule of thumb, if I don't know what you're saying due to speed, I'm not flowing it. If I don't catch a little argument in the middle of your long, un-carded speech at 300000 WPM and the opponent doesn't catch it, I'm more willing to give them leeway when you say "they dropped it!!!", since it's probably not on my flow either.

If you want to be loud, go ahead, just please don't scream at me. There's a difference between being loud and assertive and just straight up screaming. That threshold for loud vs. screaming is really high, but it's there. I'm going to find it hard to figure out what you're saying if it's being screamed at me. That being said, I do not believe that being loud means you are more persuasive. It is totally possible to speak decisively and assertively without being loud. Additionally, there's a distinction between being passionate and being loud; passion will actually probably make you more persuasive in more k/philosophical rounds. Volume will not.Rule of thumb: Favor enunciation over volume- it will make your argument much easier to follow.

I'll try my best to avoid expressing during a speech, but it's probably going to be obvious if I'm confused or lost, so if you notice that I'm lost, please slow down and take time to explain.

Arguments

Disadvantages: No problem here. Make sure you explain the link chain well enough and it should be convincing to me. I find internal links to nuclear war pretty weak, so you better make sure to explain how the plan somehow causes nuclear war if you go for this argument in the 2NR. Case turns with disadvantages are very convincing and powerful, do them. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will default to weighing the impact of the DA to the Aff at the end of the round if the neg decides to go for it.

Topicality: I actually quite like good T debates, it's just that they are more often then not really bad. Make sure you defend your interpretation. I need to know why its the best in the round (standards, standards, standards!) and why I should focus on yours over your opponent's. You also need to explain your voters, why should I vote down the team for it? If there's not compelling standards arguments on the T or the reasons to vote for T are bad, I'm going to default that the aff's topicality violation doesn't really hurt the round and I'm not voting them down for it. Therefore, if you aren't clearly explaining why the topicality violation is bad for debate, you can still lose the topicality debate even if they concede that they aren't topical.

Kritiks: I'm decently versed in kritiks, especially security kritiks. Please note that most of my experience with Ks and their arguments are within the context of debate. It would probably help you to assume that I haven't heard of your K before if it isn't a more conventional K like "security" or "capitalism" Ks. I am not that well read on this type of theory. That being said, I can follow a K quite well and I tend to understand the arguments pretty fast. Please take time to explain the link and alt very well, especially if this is your 2nr argument of choice. I need to know why the aff specifically links to the K and I need to know why the alt solves. If I don't understand the K at the end of the round, it's going to be hard for me to vote on it if it wasn't completely dropped by the aff. For most Ks, I see alts as in round, real world solvency, so no fiatted action. Basically, the ballot is what contributes to the alt solvency. How and why does my ballot help solve the large issues the K addresses? Answering this should be a key focus of your final speech(es) if you are going for it. My reasoning for this is that, if I didn't judge like this, you could theoretically win the K argument by doing:

"The aff doesn't solve the inherent issues with capitalism. The alt is a miracle cure that solves capitalism. Therefore, we should win."

If I let you do that, then I should also probably let the aff do extremely unfeasible plans that would solve large issues as well. I don't think that leads to good and interesting debate.

The important thing is that, if you lose the alt, you're losing the K. Without an alt, I'm just seeing Ks as non unique DAs, which won't win you the round. Case turns with Ks are probably the best things Ks have though, so do them!

Counterplans: Counterplans are great. I won't vote on a CP without a net benefit though unless you make a very compelling theory argument, so make sure you have a net benefit to leverage over the aff. Perms work wonders for the aff. The neg needs to win a solvency deficit to the perm in order to beat it, and the aff needs to win a solvency deficit to the CP in order to win. Basically, prove to me why your plan is best.

On the other hand, I really don't like consult CPs, PICs, etc. For those of you who don't know what those are, I envy you, but here's an overblown example:

Counterplan: We should do the aff's plan but ask NATO first.

I think these CPs are basically cheating and that they make for very bland and arbitrary debate. I'll still vote for them if the aff doesn't call you out on it, but if the aff makes even a simple theory arg, you better win that debate decisively or I'm dismissing the CP.

KAffs: I can follow most K affs, as long as you keep taking some time to walk me through your criticism. Make sure you have your in round solvency. if there's no policy action/plan text, I'm not evaluating any fiat. You need to explain to me why the ballot is key to the movement of the K aff and why ignoring the resolution is good (similar to how you win Ks). T/Framework on K affs are pretty convincing to me, so you may need to do more work as to why we need to dismiss the resolution. That being said, I have no problem voting for K affs, you just need to win your args. The biggest pitfall to watch out for here is articulating why you need the ballot. Otherwise, I will probably default voting neg on T for norms'/rules' sake even if I agree with everything you said.

Framework: Please do this. This is probably one of the easiest way a team can boost their stance in a round. Tell me what's more important in the round. This is especially important if there's competing impacts like structural violence vs. nuclear war. If you win this, I'm evaluating the round within your framework, so I'll ignore what you tell me to ignore.

Theory: I kinda like theory debates when done well. You need to explain why whatever the other team is doing is bad for debate (AKA, standards). You also need to tell me why I need to vote down the team for the violation, otherwise I'm defaulting to just rejecting their argument. Asking for me to reject the argument is a lot easier to win than asking me to reject the team, so make sure you know what you're doing if this is your final rebuttal strategy.

Speaker Points: I find assigning speaker points quite challenging. However, there are a list of things that I know I will dock points for. If you care about speaker points a lot, here's a non-exhaustive list of things I will definitely knock you down for:

Discrimination
Offensive Language (not swearing in general, but language that can be harmful to other people)
Personal attacks on other team
Confusing speeches (especially line by lines where you don't clearly connect your argument to the argument you are addressing. Please signpost)
The "laugh" (laughing/chuckling/scoffing at the opponent's argument or question as a way to attack its legitimacy. You aren't actually proving that the question/argument is illegitimate, you are just coming off as mean)
Not treating your opponents like equals/not respecting your opponents
Interrupting Speeches
Clear disorganization with partner
(Repeatedly) claiming that arguments were dropped even though they weren't
2AR cheating (bringing up new or previously dropped arguments in the 2AR)

I will be deciding speaker points using criteria beyond the ones above, but the list above serves as a good list of things I really don't like in a round.

Remember to have fun! It can be easy to get lost in the competition, but remember that we're all here to have a good time. Debate is much better when you're having fun!

Joe Webb Marquette University High School

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:01 AM EST

TL;DR: Tech > truth. Theoretically will be comfortable voting for any argument you present to me, so run whatever you're best at, and don't over-adapt too much. Comfortable with speed, just include me on the email chain. My email is webb@muhs.edu.

Background: I debated policy and LD at Marquette High in WI before studying philosophy and economics at Yale, and am currently the LD coach at Marquette.

Random Argument Thoughts:

Phil: If running phil cases is your thing, great - I really enjoy philosophy as a subject, and love rounds in which a debater is clearly passionate about a thinker and knows their thought well. If, on the other hand, you're unable to coherently explain your framework in CX, I will likely tank your speaks. FWIW, I wrote my undergrad thesis on Heidegger and plan to write my master's thesis on Nietzsche.

LARP: Probably my favorite kind of arguments to judge because they provide the easiest means to substantively engage with the topic, which I think is a good thing. CPs should be competitive and have net benefits, DAs should have uniqueness, affs should have inherency, etc.

Ks: Go for it. Please just make sure you're able to explain what the links are and how they're contextual to the aff. Ideally, there will be an ROB or some framing work done to explain why the K comes first. I prefer when K affs are at least tangentially related to the topic.

Theory/T: Honestly, I get kinda bored during theory debates and am not great at flowing them if the shells/responses aren't in the doc. My least favorite debate rounds to judge are those in which one side blows up a 5 second blip that their opponent didn't flow. I have a pretty low threshold for buying responses to friv theory.

Tricks: A conceded argument is a conceded argument, so long as it is sufficiently warranted. However, this is the area of debate that I am least familiar with, so these will require you to hold my hand a little bit.

Denae White Brookfield Central High School None

Login to Tabroom

Jim Sauer Invitational at La Crosse Central

2023 — NSDA Campus, WI/US

LD/PF Paradigm List

Judges