Hey folks,

I debated in public forum for West Bend High School in West Bend, WI for four years. During that time, I competed on the National circuit but primarily competed within Wisconsin circuit. I've found that the best way to approach debate is with an open mind receptive to learning new things about debate and understanding that debate will change over time. I feel I've gotten better at debate since becoming a judge than I ever was as a competitor now that I am able to view rounds with less bias towards winning.

The main goal of my work as a judge is to give you honest and constructive feedback. The best advice I received as a debater was that if you are being respectful, you are not just more likely to win a round but you are winning at life. Debate is a great place to bring out your competitive side, but please don't confuse having a competitive edge with being disrespectful.

Please keep in mind that while I did a few tournaments of Lincoln Douglas in high school and a little policy in college, I am fundamentally a PF debater and judge. Most of my paradigm is PF specific but many points hold across the board so it's still worth skimming if you are LD or Policy.

Logistics. What I like to see in a round-

Argumentative Split

I believe the second rebuttal should cover turns from the first rebuttal. It doesn't need to be a full 2-2 split but you must cover important responses (turns and disads, really, though it's generally wise to also hit terminal defense). Speaking second is incredibly advantageous, and it's a waste to not cover responses in the second rebuttal and makes the rest of the round messier.

Speed

If you're clear, I can flow speed. If you're too fast or incomprehensible, neither of us will be particularly happy. Luckily this trend has faded in Wisconsin, but there is still a silly trend floating around national circuit PF of people trying to "outspread" their opponents, whatever that means in PF. Fewer well-done arguments that I can understand will be rewarded more than a bunch of blippy stuff you just spew out. If you don't show me the link chain or make a clear impact, I may not reward you the argument so make everything clear.

Types of arguments

While this rarely tends to happen in Wisconsin PF because your coaches have rightfully cleared this from the pool, it is possible you may try to run things like theory and Ks. I hold that they are not done well in public forum. You can try to run them in front of me and I'll evaluate them fairly, but that doesn't mean I'll like them. Honestly, I usually don't. I think most theory run by PFers is pretty bad and makes me sad. It'll have to be done pretty well for you to both win and still get good speaker points. I really don't like it when teams run Ks or theory just to be squirrely, which many teams do. (Note: this is distinct from calling opponents out for participating in various -isms. Feel free to label offensive arguments as such, I am just less inclined to like random shells about very small issues that you read just to put your opponents on the train to Shooksville.) Running these arguments just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer them is exclusionary and it will make me not like you :-)

I really don't like when teams run squirrely things just to throw off their opponents. I will vote off the flow but I will probably be displeased doing it if I think you're being sketchy. Your points may suffer.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" (eg the military spending topic) please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring. I hate when people run super obscure advocacies that make zero sense just because they can. I will tend to interpret this as a plan and I don't accept plans in PF. Stick to interpreting the resolution and the probability of your impacts occurring.

Dates

For the love of god please read them. And names too while you are at it. Definition debates and date debates make me want to quit judging but still read them both.

Evidence

I can't believe I have to say this, but please represent evidence honestly. I'm not going to punish you for paraphrasing but I do expect you to stay true to what the evidence is saying if you choose to do so. It will severely injure your credibility if I catch you misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable. If you find your opponent doing this *ever* (regardless of who is judging) call them out. If evidence sounds too good to be true, call the card. It might win you a round. It's won me a handful.

Please don't do "debater math" or over-extrapolate the results and numbers in studies. It's often unethical and usually just uneducational and inaccurate. Wrong. Bad. Pls don't.

You should know where your evidence is. I won't start immediately running your prep when opponents want you to find some evidence because I think that's silly, but if you start taking more than a minute or so I will.

I know paraphrasing is not against the rules, so I will allow it, but I prefer you actually read from your evidence. Bracketing in your card is really uncool. The one exception, I guess, would be clarifying a qual or something. For example, if your card says "Claus continues" and you add "[world-traveler and gift delivery expert Santa] Claus continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Summary and Final Focus

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like when teams collapse well in these speeches. For the love of god, don't go for everything. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, WEIGH.

Not Being a Jerk

Be funny, be witty, but don't be rude. Don't snap at your opponent, talk down to them, or attack them. Jokes and puns are welcome, but trying too hard is less so.

I have noticed there is a trend emerging in public forum. To put it simply, this trend involves being a massive jerk to your opponent in cross. While I will not automatically drop you for this, I am not afraid to tank your speaks. Be nice and we will all be happy, be mean and nobody will be happy. :-)

Prep

Keep track of it. I am far too lazy to do it for you. And I don't always remember to click that lil button that makes the timer go beep so don't make me look bad, time yourself.

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

I could not care less if you enter the room or do the flip before I get there. Go ahead, if you want to.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/etc to be comfortable, I really don't care, and I won't dock you for it.

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, you might want to strike me. Unless I am sobbing from the sheer beauty of whatever earth-shattering revelations your speeches gave me I don't intend on giving you a thirty. 27 is supposed to be average, and point fairy-ism is bad norms. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27-28.5 range. (Note: I've gotten more liberal with this over time but I think it's a fair disclaimer).

If you show me photos of dogs, I'll give you a 30. Just kidding. No I won't. But you can do it anyways.

Former Debate Coach at Whitefish Bay High School. I keep a rigorous flow and I will vote for all types of arguments.

I'm listening, but I usually don't add cross examination or crossfire to the flow, so make sure you bring it up in a subsequent speech. Flex prep is fine.

For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

I have been a student debater primarily in Policy debate at Bradley Tech High School, with a few debates under my belt in Public Forum Debate as well. I have judged Policy as well as Public Forum, and primarily Lincoln Douglas Debate for the last 5 years on the Wisconsin Circuit and once at the Glenbrooks.

SPEED:Not a fan of speed, as debaters tend to get very inarticulate when trying to spread other debaters.

FRAMEWORK:I put a lot of weight on framework debates. This is a big voter for me.

KRTIKS: Not much of a fan mostly due to the fact that most debaters can't fully explain one in the short amount of time allotted. Run at your own peril or if you can explain and convince me fully to pick up up on one.

COUNTER PLANS:I usually like to hear counterplans, as long as they have structure and can be explained well to convince me to vote on it.

THEORY: I can listen to it, but most of the time, it won't be enough to guarantee a win, UNLESS you are very convincing in it, AND that is all you have for a particular argument.

DISADVANTAGES: See impacts.

IMPACTS: VERY IMPORTANT! WEIGH...THE ...ROUND!!! Give me voters and extend your impacts please. In the end, that is what will convince me to give you the win.

DELIVERY AND POLITENESS: Have a clear delivery, with lots of clash, and be very polite. I did not like rudeness when I was debating; won't tolerate it now when I am judging. Not a fan of flex prep, where cross ex continues during another person's prep time.

After the round, I can give oral critiques, BUT I DO NOT DISCLOSE! I feel the debaters will follow the comments more if they are not distracted by the win or loss disclosure.

Any other questions, just ask me before the round.

I look forward to judging some awesome debates.

Be respectful.

I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, please make sure I can understand you.

Experience: 4 years policy Neenah High School, 2 years policy UW Madison

For the sake of efficiency, I will start this paradigm with a basic list of issues and mistakes that most frequently appear in rounds and shape my decisions.

1. Impact calculus shapes my decisions more frequently than any other issue. Impact calc is more about relativity than telling me whether or not your advantage/DA has a big impact. Giving me a speech about how large your nuclear war scenario would be is ineffective by itself because it offers no comparative claims that help me distinguish between your impact scenario and your opponents'. Teams have historically won more of my ballots by telling my why their nuclear war scenario is bigger than their opponents' climate change scenario, to use an example. Making DA turns case arguments or case solves the DA arguments are also helpful in facilitating this process for me.

2. "Perm do both" is not an argument by itself. I have dropped affirmative teams in the past because they spent a 2AR telling me that the negative conceded the permutation without actually telling me anything about what the world of the perm looks like. In order to win a permutation, I require both an image of how the CP/K and plan interact in the world of the perm and an explanation of how the perm solves the net benefit.

3. "They conceded condo bad" is not an argument. If the negatives have indeed dropped condo bad or any other theory argument, please extend at least your interpretation and standards. The growing theme here is that conceded arguments still need to have impact calc attached to them in order to sway my decision.

4. If you read framework as part of a kritik, your explanation should thoroughly explain to me how I should evaluate both the kritik and the affirmative through my ballot. I have had many negative teams say something like "the judge should act as a critical educator" without actually telling me how I evaluate arguments under that paradigm. Does that mean the aff gets to weigh its impacts? Is the aff hypothetically implemented? If I don't weigh the aff's impacts, then how DO I weigh the aff?

5. Please treat your opponents with respect. Being assertive and displaying outright hostility towards the other team in cross ex are two different things. Your ethos will not increase by acting excessively sarcastic to your opponents, and it's always uncomfortable to watch rounds like that. I realize that tensions inevitably increase from time to time due to the competitive nature of the activity, but please realize that we are all just here to learn at the end of the day. I'm also not about to vote for racism good or similar arguments, and death good is probably an uphill battle for you.

Next, onto some more specific arguments. I'm not the type to outline every single genre of argument and explain what I like to see, but here are some important ones:

Framework v. K affs: I am more persuaded by arguments geared towards argumentative refinement and institutional engagement being beneficial as opposed to arguments about fairness. I tend to view fairness as an internal link to education, and I'm not usually persuaded by "debate is a game" arguments because I have derived more education from debate than from any other game I've ever played. You will have an easier time winning my ballot if you thoroughly explain the bounds set by your interpretation and clearly explain how a TVA under your interpretation can still access their portion of the library. The less exclusionary your interpretation is to various forms of scholarship, the more likely you will earn my ballot.

K Affs/Antitopical Affs/Non-traditional Affs: I am happy to hear these and evaluate them like I would any other argument. I have a few comments to keep in mind, however. I have seen a lot of teams use some sort of performance, poetry, etc. in the 1AC and then not talk about it for the rest of the round. If you performed something, that performance usually has some sort of value in terms of scholarship, so it's definitely worth your time to extend it. Also, if you're debating against T-USfg, craft your counter-interpretation carefully. Many teams will make a CI that seems rather self-serving and tailored to their specific affirmative. Those highly narrow CI's make it easier to prefer the negative's framework from an education point of view.

Answering Kritiks on the Affirmative: I see a lot of policy aff teams forming unnecessarily defensive strategies when answering kritiks. Spending two minutes of the 2AC explaining to me why there's no link to the K is probably an inefficient way to spend your time because there's almost always SOME link. Instead, focus your time on making the impact of your 1AC massive and using that as offense against the kritik. Impact calc, explaining why the alt can't solve your impact, and explaining why the case solves or is a prerequisite to the K are all better ways of spending your 2AC/1AR/2AR time than trying to no link the K. Also, keep a perm alive in the debate.

Finally, some more general tips for the round:

Impacting your arguments out generally wins more ballots than focusing on every nitpicky detail of the line by line. You obviously shouldn't drop or overlook even "small" arguments on your flow, but a 2NR that discusses 2-3 arguments in depth with comparative work will likely beat a 2AR that spreads for 5 minutes but technically answers everything on the flow. I will probably miss dropped arguments if you spend virtually no time on them. It's always your job to impact out conceded points and turn them into key voting issues for me.

Ethos is crucial. I would bet that 90% of ballots go to the team with the stronger ethos and presentation of their arguments. This means that you should pay close attention to your delivery and the tone of your argumentation. Looking confident and making judges feel like your arguments are obviously true can seriously help shape an RFD. Additionally, take time to slow down in the 2NR/2AR and have two or three "ethos moments" where you stare a judge down and explain to them why a couple arguments are the most important ones in the world. If your 2NR/2AR is just you spreading for 5 minutes without actually changing your inflection or speed to articulate the crucial segments of your speech, I will likely miss some important arguments.

Other than that, I have few preferences from a substantive perspective about what arguments I want you to read or how I want you to argue them. I have seen a diverse array of strategies throughout my time in debate, and I would prefer a round in which both teams just argue whatever they like to argue.

I have been head coach at Bradley Tech High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 17 years, and just now semi retired. but still helping out with the team for the last two. I have been influential in having students qualify for our State Tournament in all debate categories, and Nationals in Policy Debate. We have focused on Lincoln-Douglas the last 6 years however.

SPEED:
Not a fan of speaking so fast that you pass out in the round. I can usually flow a decently fast speaker as long a you are clear. I will let you know if you are too fast or I can't understand you.

TOPICALITY:
I love topicality! I'm biased because that is how I used to win my negative rounds. HOWEVER, a bad T violation will not persuade me to vote for your side. T violations should be well constructed and given weight, as well as how it impacts the negative adversely. For Aff, definitely give justifiable reasons why you should win the T debate; not just with theory arguments.

DISADVANTAGES:

RUN THEM! Just make sure the impact is strong.

COUNTERPLANS:

RUN THEM! HOWEVER, for the purpose of LD, theory might not completely persuade me to vote against a counterplan, unless the neg side drops it, then I will vote on it.

KRITIKS:

RUN THEM! But you don't automatically win them if you do not understand them yourself. If you run it, run it well!

KRITIKAL AFFS:

Not very clear on these. I understand Kritiks, so if they are run in this manner, I'm on board.

THEORY:

This is my weakest area. Still I will listen, if you are very knowledgeable and can convince me.

Overall, I am very tabula rasa when it comes to debate, and I love to learn from the debates I judge. Which is why I am not too much a fan of extremely high speed debates. So I will listen to pretty much ANYTHING if you can persuade me how you win. I look forward to judging you.

Um, so, like, so, ummmm, so ... yeah.

He/Him/His pronouns

Add me to the email chain or involve me in flash trades -> noodleevers@gmail.com

I guess I should put my experience here:

I debated 3 years at Appleton East in PF, competing both in state and in the national circuit. Since graduation (2-3 years now), I have coached LD mainly on the national circuit.

General beliefs

How to win my ballot

I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds (maybe that's bad, terminal defense is a thing, but I generally have a high threshold for terminal d). This has a few implications for how I make my decision. First, I love turns, especially if they are not just blips in the rebuttal. I will happily just vote on your opponents' case if you turn each of their arguments and extend those turns. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out.

Above all, I try not to intervene. I do as little work for you as possible, I flow very well, and I put a lot of thought into my decision. I judge because I like doing it and I think Public Forum specifically needs more flow judges that want to be there.

Speed

I do not care about how fast you talk in PF or local LD. For nat circuit LD, I can usually handle a 7-8 dependent on how tired or hungry I am (If it is an 8 am round, I'll prolly be a bit rusty so that that with a grain of salt). If I can't understand you, I will yell "Clear" (yeah, this almost never happens, y'all are pretty good at understanding when I'm tired). Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know.

Extensions

I guess I'm kinda picky about extensions. Just saying "extend this piece of evidence" is not gonna be enough in my eyes. I will only extend evidence that is warranted, especially if it is key to your offense.

Speaks

I will reward debaters for clarity, humor, tech skill, strategy, and topic knowledge. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance six months after the round. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average or didn't disclose :[ . 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

PF

Technical Beliefs about PF

EVIDENCE (updated 4/28/19)

- I've done a lot of thinking about evidence quality in PF specifically. I've come to the realization that paraphrasing is not just bad for the debate community (because it allows for power-tagging, misconstruing evidence, the whole shebang) it is also intellectually dishonest and should be punished. If you paraphrase cards in front of me in the constructive or rebuttal, I will regard that evidence as an analytic that has no empirical backing and you will likely get an L. If you don't have a card cut and instead pull up a pdf that makes it impossible to determine what you actually read in the round, I will also consider that an analytic and you will likely get an L. This is not negotiable. Cut cards, ask your coach the proper formatting, and PF will be much better. Strike me if you don't want to engage in norms that every other form of debate has practiced since at least the 70's.

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

SECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL

- I do not believe that that second speaking team must return and answer the entirety of the first rebuttal as the time skew is much too great. I do think that this second speaking team should adapt to the round and answer major offense that could be damning to them in the speech.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. and have had some decent experience evaluating these types of arguments in national circuit LD. Read my LD paradigm for thoughts on those more progressive arguments.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

- PF specifically needs more T/Theory arguments. Too many of y'all are getting away with really bad interpretations of debate. I am not afraid to pull the trigger on disclosure good arguments and if you're not disclosing, particularly on the national circuit, you're going to have a rough time with me at the back of the room. Spending the extra minute to disclose your positions is not that tough and has never hampered good debates in LD and Policy. I expect the same in PF.

More evidence stuff that won't cost you an L but might lower you speaks

- During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. I prefer to use an email chain at the beginning of rounds (yes, even in pf - y'all gotta stop power tagging every damn card you read), but if you don't, evidence will be exchanged off of prep time unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence if not in an email chain after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Ok, if you’re a pfer, this is where you can check out (read the bottom if y'all feel like getting some extra speaker points tho).

LD

Great, you made it this far, congrats.

Topicality

Bad topicality debates are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever. To more easily win a T debate, debaters should have two things:

1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution. This doesn't necessarily need to be carded.

2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why.

I usually don't default to reasonability but can be persuaded to fit check interps. I often find myself in debates where t isn't really an issue, but often times negatives don't realize when they are ahead on the t debate. Either way, do what you do.

Counterplans

Bad, cheaty cp's are really bad, but good ones I really enjoy hearing. Don't be afraid to go for the PIC, process, or consult CP if the aff undercovers it. Don't let my predispositions decide the debate, particularly when the flow dictates it. Counterplan theory is a good way to answer this. I default to rejecting the argument and not the debater. Also, seeing as people in state (WI) don't really run counterplans that well, I need to hear a net benefit to the aff. If you don't have that it's going to be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Theory

I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some crappy answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally, I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality). Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. I don't have your old ass condo block file in front of me like you do. If you just blow through like 5 subpoints in just as many seconds, I will probably not catch all of it. If I don't catch it, I won't be flowing the "extension" of it in later speeches.

Kritiks

Typically, I see K debates as a double-edged sword. Usually, teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:

1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves

2. A link that is specific to the affirmative

3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate; the impact debate is oft-ignored by the negative

An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

K affs

I'm cool with them. I have had limited experience running and judging k affs, so take that with a grain of salt. T/Fw is usually a good response to K Affs, but that may just be my experience speaking.

As far as clash of rev debates go, I have little experience adjudicating or debating them. I'll try to judge them as best I can and have judged a fair number of them on the LD nat circuit, but do not construe that with me being comfortable with them (though I will try my best to interfere as little as possible)

Disads

A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts to the affirmative. It's cool if they act as the net benefit to the cp or on its own. Using the DA to turn the case is prolly a good thing. I love a good politics DA debate (but this congress is weird so the link and il is gonna be crucial to win).

Phil, Skep, and the like

- yeah, so ummmm...

- This is the thing I am least comfortable adjudicating. I'll evaluate it the best I can and have voted on phil plenty of times, so don't discourage that from letting you do your thing, but ... yeah.

One last thing,

"'"If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27."- Akhil Jalan' - Kedrick Stumbris" - Joshua Evers.

- Plz put me on the email chain --> noodleevers@gmail.com

Regards,

Judge person

I'm a first-year judge without a debate background but have been certified in judging Forensics since 2017. I'll flow whatever you tell me to, so make everything explicit. I love good clash, so make sure your answers to your opponents are pertinent. Not the biggest fan of speed. I give top speaks to those who I see as strong and assertive in-round.

St. Ambrose Academy judge. No high school debate experience. I typically judge several tournaments during the year and the state tournament.

Students should speak at a speed which allows them to distinctly enunciate in order to be completely understood. If I can not understand, I will ask the student to slow down.

I prefer arguments over style.

Final focus is to reiterate your case by succinctly demonstrating your "wins" during the debate.

Arguments do not need to be extended if well presented.

Analytics over evidence.

I prefer to hear debates that are true to the public forum format, convincing the public based on the merit of the arguments.

TL; DR: I like debate, be nice, please WEIGH VOTERS/IMPACTS

For me, debate was one of the most important and impactful things I did while I was in high school. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to do debate and we should all make sure debate is as inclusive as possible.

Fundamentally, this is accomplished through mutual respect between and for competitors and judges. Everyone should feel comfortable debating in front of their opponents, their partner, and the judge, and I try to do my part to facilitate that. On the flip side, I have zero tolerance for disrespectful, snide, or patronizing comments, whether that is between students or between students and judges. If you shout at me or your opponent, your speaker points and/or the result of the round will reflect that.

This carries into arguments you might run: don’t run an argument/case just because you think your opponent won’t know how to respond to it. I hate it when people run garbage just because they can (i.e., poorly done meme cases). I’m a flow based judge, but I’ll still tank your speaks for being obscure or esoteric.

On to debate specifics:

To quote Ozan Ergungor--

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

Speed: I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, please make sure I can understand you! If you think you’re going too fast, you’re going too fast. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you!

Crossfire: I don’t flow cross-ex unless you tell me to. Any arguments need to be included in subsequent speeches (except FF, no new arguments there).

Rebuttal split: The second rebuttal should start to begin to rebuild following the first rebuttal. If you don't, it puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on your partner to rebuild in the summary while also distilling voters and that can get messy.

Summary/Final Focus: Please, please, please, please, please give me voters and why you win the voters as soon as possible, ideally by the summary. Please do not make your summary a rebuttal reprise or a mini-case. Distill and collapse the debate efficiently and identify where the key points of clash are.

Evidence:

1. Give me dates, names, and sources
2. Paraphrasing is okay, but don’t abuse the bracket. Make sure you are accurately and truthfully representing evidence and not performing debate magic on stats and findings.
3. I will only call for a card if it’s being flowed in opposite directions or if either team asks me to (but remember the rules around a formal accusation).
4. I won’t take prep when you ask for a card, but I'll start to run it when you've had a chance to read it. Don’t abuse that though, otherwise I’ll run prep and dock your speaker points.

Miscellaneous:

Keep track of your own speech and prep times. I'll keep track too: if you go 30 seconds over the time limit on either, you can get a maximum of 25 speaker points. Don't steal prep either (i.e., saying "end prep" and then proceeding to take 10 more seconds of prep).

I always vote Pro on the second and fourth weekend of the month, and Con on the first and third weekend of the month. Nah I’m just kidding

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

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

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

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

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

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

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

LD General Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:I did 4 years of high school PF debate, but I haven't judged in a few years. I judge on the flow.

He/him/his

LD:

I have no experience with LD, and little knowledge of the rules or conventional arguments. I'm receptive to progressive arguments, but just be sure you explain it so I can understand it, and don't assume I know too much.

Policy:

Hi! If you're in policy and you have been informed that I am your judge there has been a grave mistake, which, if not corrected, we will regret.

THE ROUND:

Your Performance:

I'm okay with speed. I like speed. I love speed. It's not a requirement by any means, but it makes judging a round much more interesting and can allow for better debate.

First and foremost your opponent is a human being. If you can't beat them while treating them with respect, you don't deserve to win.

Signpost.

Arguments:

If you don't flow an argument through summary, I cannot weigh it in final focus.

You don't need to flow all defense through summary, but you might want to flow through defense on significant turns and arguments. Ultimately your choice.

I'm fine with theory in some cases. If an argument is abusive or people are making the debate space unwelcome feel free to call that out and tell me it's a reason to drop an argument or team.

Outside of that ^ it'll be difficult to persuade me theory is appropriate.

If you have a non-default framework (ie, if you're not running a simple util cost-benefit analysis) say it at the top of your constructive.

Plans and counterplans are against the rules in PF. Don't run them. And don't disguise a counterplan as an "alternative" or your "advocacy". You must show probability in order to access an argument.

Link chains are paramount. Demonstrate their robust probability and you'll do well. Strong link chains are far better and more impressive than finding a link into nuclear war or some other catastrophic impact.

For gods sake weigh the round well. It's more stressful for me and more frustrating for you if I have to figure it out on my own.

In summary and final focus Line-by-line and grouping into voters are both acceptable options.

Recency doesn't matter unless you explain why it matters.

Meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews > 1 or 2 studies.

Cross:

I'm paying attention in cross, but not that much. It doesn't go on my flow. If your opponent makes a concession you want me to make note of please mention it in the following speech.

Evidence:

If you cite a card, you should be able to produce the card with context within 15-20 seconds. I don't run prep while people find evidence, but it just looks bad.

I only call cards if I'm asked by either team, and only if the card actually matters

Cite the author, year, and their qualifications if you can. It's much more compelling than citing an outlet (ie "according to CNN")

Speaker Points:

My mind is a mystery machine. It is a black box which even I do not pretend to understand. Your performance goes in, your speaker points come out. Is it consistent? No. Is it fair? I dunno. Speaker points are iffy to begin with.

if you have any questions come find me or email me at kannen32@uwm.edu

do it, you won't

I place importance on value and value criterion, and their strong connection to the resolution. The debater who clearly articulates and summarizes how and why his or her value relates better to the resolution will be viewed favorably. I also take into account impact calculus when making my decision, so be sure to provide me with impacts and voters. The debater who convinces me that his or her framework is the best one to use in the real world to base my decision, I will uphold that debater.

My preference is a traditional argument, but I will vote for a progressive argument as long as the values and framework are upheld. Plans are fine, as long as you make sure that you connect your plan/counter plan back to the resolution.

I can tolerate speed as long as it doesn’t impede comprehension. I place an emphasis on speech in debate, and I will make sure that your speaker points reflect that.

I appreciate internal signposting and off time road maps as they help me flow better.

My history with debate is 4 years of PF in highschool up to 2012 and I have been judging both PF and LD since then.

In general I prefer the standard debate methodology, Other styles of argumentation are fine, but if they aren't run well or detract from the overall debate experience I am far less likely to pick them up.

Please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed, if I can't figure out what you are saying I cannot flow, should this be the case I will verbally request for clarity, if it persists beyond that point my ability to flow will be impacted. That said, I am generally fine with a moderate amount of speed when clear.

I am perfectly fine should you wish to use a cellular device for a timer or a laptop or tablet as a document reader / note taker.

I appreciate brief roadmaps prior to giving a speech, which I will not time.

Impacts/voters/solvency and the like are particularly relevent without the internal comparisons provided by the debate, I am left to weigh from a complete external view, Its often best to frame to end of the round to promote that the major foci are perceved as you wish them to be.

Over the course of the debate I expect interaction between debaters, without back and forth the overall quality of the debate is diminished and it becomes harder to judge.

As for speeker points, professionalism is highly encouraged, try to stay organized and track your own time, I will be doing so as well but having good tempo and structure to arguments vastly improves a speeches cogency. Additionally if you come across as disrespectful or rude you take away from the debate experience and I am inclined to take away speeker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts, (note: i will only answer if all relevent people are present)

I have been a high school debater in the past, back in the days when we pushed around dollies of totes packed with paper evidence. While I have experience with debate I have only been back into judging for the past 2 or 3 years. At this point I feel comfortable with all the changes.

My background as a debater is in Policy debate. My teammates and I thought that tabula rasa was the coolest paradigm, so that's probably still influencing my decisions to this day. It's pretty much, I have no predispositions so you tell me how to vote.

I try to flow every argument and evidence card as thoroughly as I can but I need your help. Please speak clearly and keep your arguments in a coherent order. I can handle speed if you have a lot to cover in your speech. However, weigh that with the fact that if it was too fast for me to follow you will need to clarify your arguments as soon as possible. If you wait too long to make your arguments clear to me then it will be too late for me to fairly weigh them against others in the round.

"Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?" Sage advice I nabbed from another judge.

In crossfire I like to see that you are paying attention. Ask lots of questions and don't leave room for awkward pauses.

I am an assistant coach. My older son was the reason I started judging. He completed in LD debate all 4 years of High School and he graduated from High School in 2015. I did not debate in High School or College. Starting in 2012, I have judged PF and LD. I prefer LD in terms of the time it affords debaters to develop an argument and that it can includes philosophy. However, my experience is more traditional so if you are trying to run progressive argumentation--know you run the risk of me not understanding what you're talking about. The burden is on you to get me to understand your case--not the other way around.

Do you judge on framework or contentions?
The short answer "it depends".
I flow so it just depends on where I think you are winning.

Use good evidence.
Make sure you are using reputable sources (peer-reviewed and/or follow journalistic ethics) with proper citation. Some examples of sources that I don't find reputable: Infowars, Breitbart, Shareblue.

Have your evidence ready to show your opponent should they ask for it.

Side note: If your opponent "flashes" or emails their case to you during the round, delete it at the end. Don't use this as an underhanded opportunity to help your team prep out against an opponent. Although, I think LD has evolved where everyone may be sharing cases in advance of the rounds. I guess my rule of thumb--ask your opponent what their comfort level is.

Clarity.
Speak loudly and clearly. Direct your speeches to the judge. In Cross, direct your questions to your opponent. I don't flow cross, but I am listening for things I think I will hear in speeches. I like roadmaps (off-the-clock) and "sign-posting" within the speech to help with my flowing. Be clear in your arguments in terms of how you are linking everything together (framework, claims, warrants and impacts). Think of ways to easily summarize an idea. Word economy.

If you use jargon, be prepared to explain it.

Slow down on your tag-lines for your value, value criteria, contentions. Also contention taglines are like headlines--make them pithy and to the point. Then you use your evidence and analysis to explain your contention.

Remember to continue to use your evidence in your rebuttals. Give me the impacts of the world you are creating.

If something is dropped or extends through, you need to say it. Don't assume I will do that for you.

Summarize what you want me to write on the ballot with Voters in your last speech. You can't cover everything in the last 2 minutes so it should be a summary of what you think I should write in my RFD.

Speed. In terms of speed, talking faster than 300 words/minute (wpm) you do at your own risk. I read at about 300wpm. Most audiobooks are read at about 150wpm. Anything being read faster than 300wpm is faster than most auctioneers. I find "spreading" to be a lazy tactic--trying to throw everything you can at your opponent also means you want the judge to sift through your pile of arguments as well. If you speak faster than 300wpm, then you run the risk of me not catching the important parts of your argument. At a minimum, slow down on your taglines for your value, value criteria, contentions, warrants.

Clash. I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each others cases. If you run progressive arguments, link it back to the resolution and your opponent's case. Otherwise, I may or may not see it as topical/relevant.

If there is no clash in the around then you are asking me to intervene--so I may judge then on presentation or entertain skills. Just keep this in mind.

Be respectful. Opponents should be respectful. I understand the adrenaline can get flowing, but being abusive or sarcastic won't help your cause and will lower your speaker points. Even if you are the smartest person in the room and I am dumbest, the judge's determination is what matters. Insulting the judge will also lower your speaker points.

References:

SPJ Code of Ethics

Revised September 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. CT at SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

If you have any additional questions about my judging style or experience I'm open to answering them before rounds start. This paradigm will be cleaned up later, but I hope this is enough information to use for prefs and strikes. If you're like me and wait until the last minute to finish strikes, feel free to jump to the bottom, I tried to summarize my entire paradigm in a couple sentences. For those of you that have time before round or strikes, I recommend reading the entire thing, It'll help you in round.

I have a Public Forum background. I debated PF for 4 years at Brookfield East High School in Wisconsin, and am currently a student at Northwestern University. In high school, I debated on the nat circuit between 3-4 times each year, so I have a decent understanding of how nat circuit tournaments and rounds work. In addition to the nat circuit and local WI circuit, I broke to late elims at NSDA multiple years. Essentially, treat me like any other college student ex-PFer.

My judging style is pretty standard for the nat circuit.

First, make extensions in summary, and those extensions should form the basis of the final focus (don't make new args in FF)

Second, this may just be a personal thing, but for rebuttal, I like to hear the second team come back and defend their own case. If nothing else, I expect the second rebuttal to respond to turns on their case. That's just something I did as a debater, and something I think makes a second rebuttal stronger.

Third, I can handle speed in PF. You can read semi-fast and I'll be able to follow, but obviously, don't spread or you'll lose me. If you ever get too fast for me, I'll look up at you and slow down my writing, and that should be your cue to slow down (I won't ever drop my pen and cross my arms though because I got really annoyed when judges did that to me). This sounds harsh, but it's your loss if I can't flow everything in your case and have trouble connecting the extensions, so keep that in mind when you speak fast. We all miss warrants and impacts occasionally, and I'll try my best to minimize that, but this is just something to consider.

Fourth, keep your speeches organized. I want to flow as much as I can so I have what I need to make an informed decision, but if your summary/rebuttal/FF is randomly jumping back and forth between arguments, it's hard for me to follow.

Fifth, during FF, please please give me voters, and usually just between 1-2. The worst final focuses are ones that turn into a 3rd rebuttal. I tend to vote on 1-2 issues in the round max so crystallize, consolidate, and PLEASE weigh the round in the last two speeches. It makes my job so much easier if you can execute a clean impact calculus for important args. Summaries and FF are meant to have arguments dropped; part of a good summary is knowing which arguments to drop and which to weigh, I won't hold it against you for dropping an arg in the round that neither team is going for. I can explain more about my FF philosophy before the round if you need more info.

Sixth, I don't really care what happens in cross-fire. I only feel the need to say that because I know horror stories of being dropped based on something that happens in cross. Unless your opponent literally concedes their entire position, I won't base my decision on that. Just don't personally attack your opponents during that time and we'll be good. I understand that cross can get heated, I got annoyed as a debater too, so your speaks won't take a big hit if I can tell you're frustrated. Just maintain some professionalism and you'll be fine.

On the topic of speaks, I'm pretty lenient. If you do a good job in the round you don't have to worry, you probably got decent speaks (I'm talking 28.5-29). The most frustrating moment in PF out rounds is to find out you didn't break because one shitty judge gave you awful speaks. I'll try not to be that person. I give 30s to debaters I think killed it and are probably going to do well.

Off-time roadmaps: A lot of judges hate these, but I'm totally cool with them as long as they are <10 secs. Just give me a quick summary of where you'll be going in the speech (i.e aff case then neg case, framework and then down the opponent's case, etc.). It helps me follow along on my flow.

Arguments: I will pretty much buy anything you explain well, extend well, and impact well. Don't make arguments that are logically flawed or impact to the zombie apocalypse (there's a reason you aren't in policy). Basically, don't unreasonably stretch the scope of the resolution and you'll be good.

Evidence: Use a good balance of evidence and logic in your arguments and I will buy it, don't rely too much on one or the other. I'll call for a card under any of these circumstances (if there aren't tournament rules regarding evidence)

1. I think you purposefully miscut a card or it sounds super sketchy.

2. The interpretation of the card changes as the round progresses. If I'm confused as to what the card actually says by the end, I will call for it.

3. The card gets muddled during the round and becomes important towards the end. If the two teams have different interpretations of the same card and it's important to either narrative, I'll call it.

4. There is an evidence challenge.

RFDs: I wasn't a fan of rounds where judges didn't disclose, so I'll at least let both teams know who won and lost. If we have some time, I'll go a bit more in-depth about why I voted the way I did, and answer any questions you may have.

SUMMARY: Ok, if you are reading this part it's probably because you need to make a quick decision on who to strike. Basically, I'm an ex-PFer and college student from Wisconsin, I debated on the nat circuit all 4 years of high school, so I know what nat circuit PF looks like. Make good extensions in summary, use those in FF. I can handle PF speed, but obviously, don't abuse that. Stay organized and give me voters in FF. Treat me as you would pretty much any other ex-PFer.

At the end of the day, just have fun with rounds. This is an activity you chose to do, and you should enjoy the time you have with it.

Speed is fine so long as what you say is understandable, don't sacrifice clarity for the purposes of spreading. Strong logical arguments upheld by sound evidence is essential, and statements that are blatantly false are massive checks against you (don't try to tell me Egypt built the Great Wall of China). I will only disclose when the tournament requires and only give oral critiques when I think they are absolutely necessary, and usually not at end of year tournaments like NFL's, CFL's, or State.

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

PF Paradigm:

12/3/2020 update: My bar for dropping a team for cheating is fairly low. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence and you want to stake the round on it, a useful phrase to know is: "I am making a formal evidence challenge under NSDA rule 7.3.C., for distortion of evidence. We are stopping the round and staking the round's outcome on the result of this formal evidence violation."

No off-time roadmaps. Period. Signpost instead. I will start the clock when you start roadmapping.

Online debate: Before the round starts, there should be a Google Doc (preferred instead of email) with all debaters and judges on it. You should be prepared to add any evidence you read to that Doc in a carded format -- I am receptive to drop-the-argument theory if evidence isn't accessible to your opponents in round.

I time prep meticulously because prep theft is rampant in PF. If a card is requested, teams have 60 seconds to find the card and add it to the file sharing mechanism of the round -- anything beyond that comes out of the prep time of the team that can't find their own evidence. If evidence can't be found, there needs to be an argument made in a speech to drop it (eg. "Drop their argument because they could not share the supporting evidence: we were not given a fair chance to review and dispute its claims."). Discuss and review evidence during cross-x time whenever possible.

If both teams agree to it before the round, and the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow it, I am fine with waiving Grand Cross and granting both teams an additional minute of prep time.

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

• If it's not in the final focus, it's not going to win you the round.

• I appreciate effective crossfire, and will listen to it, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.

• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is expected to just read case (though I'm open to teams rejecting this norm), I expect coverage of both sides of the flow starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.

• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make framework arguments in case.

• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical PF strategy, like a "kritik".

• I don't give weight to any argument labeled as an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round.

If you start your speech by saying "3-2-1", I will say "Blastoff"! "3-2-1" is not necessary!

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

NSDA 2021: I have judged ZERO rounds on this topic. The last policy judging I did was at NCFL 2019. I will not know the jargon or meta of this topic.

Judging circuit policy debate is generally an unpleasant experience for me, mainly because of speed. However, lay-oriented CX debate is easily my favorite event.

General Overview:

• Default to Policymaker paradigm. The one major difference is that you should always assume that I am very dumb. Call it the 'stupid President' paradigm.
• You're welcome to run non-traditional positions (K's included) IF you keep them to a conversational pace (We're talking Public Forum slow here) and explain why it means I vote for you.
• I have a mock trial background and I LOVE clever cross-x. However, I do expect closed cross-x: one person per team speaking!
• I don't open speech docs except to review specific pieces of evidence that have been indicted.

Presentation Preferences:

• <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'whiplash' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD and PF, too.

Argumentation Preferences:

• I like smart counterplans that discuss technical details.
• Theory/K's should be impacted more than just saying "voter for fairness and education".

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

Speed-reading (spreading) is embarrassing. I want to sell school administrators on this activity.

My default stance is to vote based on the "truth" of the resolution, but you can propose alternative frameworks.

I have no K background. For Ks/nontraditional arguments, go slowly and explain thoroughly. Explain either how the K proves/disproves the resolution, or offer a compelling alternative ROTB.

Disclosure theory is exclusionary/bad, but disclosed positions get more leeway on certain T standards.

Presentation Preferences:

• Number your refutations.
• Use cross-ex effectively -- the goal is to get concessions that can be used in speeches.
• Present charismatically, make me want to vote for you as a communicator (though I vote off the flow).

Argumentation Preferences:

• Give me voter issues -- the big ballot stories of the round. Go big picture and frame how I'm supposed to look at issues.
• Philosophical "evidence" means very little to me. A professor from Stanford making a specific analytical claim is functionally the same as you making that argument directly.
• I'm bad at flowing authors and try to get the concepts down in as much detail as possible instead. For philosophical arguments, I generally prefer clearly explained logic over hastily-read cards. However, evidence related to quantitative things should be cited because those studies are highly dependent on precision/accuracy and are backed up empirically.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

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.

Former LD/PF Coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI and former PF debater at Brookfield East High School (class of 2014) in Brookfield, WI.

As far as the round goes, my bottom line is that I don’t want to have to intervene so please make the round as clear as possible. Speaking more generally, I think debate can teach

Short Version

LD

I prefer traditional debate.

I'm open to progressive arguments if they're well-presented and clearly link into the resolution, but tread carefully and at your own risk.

Don't spread. It's a cheap strat with no real world value. Left up to me, it would be banned from debate.

PF

PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Please don't be lazy and fire off all your research at me as quickly as possible Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals.

Give voters in the Final Focus. Please.

Long Version

LD

I’m theoretically open to anything as a judge so long as you extend your arguments throughout the round, offer good impact calc, and provide solid links to the resolution (especially if you plan on running anything 'progressive'). This may seem basic but it's only happened in 10% of the debates I've judged, maybe less.

As far as content goes, I would much rather judge a traditional debate. This means providing a framework (ex: value and value criterion) followed by a few topical contentions. I'm okay with Kritiks and theory so long as they apply to the resolution. For example, a Native-American oppression K works well with a resolution about education (seeing as the US actively destroyed Native-American culture through boarding schools), but it doesn't work nearly as well when debating criminal justice. In other words, please tailor your Ks (or theory) to the resolution. If you don't, I'll conclude that someone gave you something to read and that you don't actually know how to debate and will be clamoring for reasons to drop you for the remainder of the debate.

Spreading is a cancer in LD debate. Sure, debate is like a game and spreading is a strategy you can employ to win the game, but it's not something you're going to go pro in- there's no professional debate league. The value of debate to you as a debater derives from the skills it equips you with to navigate through life (i.e. research, articulation, persuasiveness, audience adaptation, etc). The point is that spreading is not a skill you will use in life after debate.

To clarify, I won't drop you for spreading but will gleefully tank your speaks. If both debaters want to spread I will judge the round as you wish but will tank your speaks. I'm sure this annoys many of the "progressive" LDers reading this, but if you're actually good at debate, adapting shouldn't be a problem.

PF

It saddens me that I need to put this in my paradigm, but I will drop you if you run anything progressive in Public Forum. PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience; it is a debate where any generally informed member of the public should be able to judge. If you try and go over the heads of the judge or your opponent and avoid thoughtfully engaging with the resolution, I will not hesitate to drop you on that alone. You are a cancer to PF and should strongly consider moving to policy or LD.

As far as best practices go to win me over in PF (again, pretty basic stuff but I rarely see it in round): make sure you extend any offense you plan on using in the Final Focus through the summary, provide good impact calc (ex: why should I prefer saving lives over saving money?), and please give voters.

It amazes me when I hear people say "and if I have time, I'll give voters." Voters are by far the most important part of the Final Focus. You can't whine about being judge-screwed if you didn't do the work yourself and clarify what the judge should vote on.

Feel free to reach out with any questions: ashveersingh12@gmail.com

Greetings All,

I am a debate coach of over 20 years. I have coached Policy, Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. My favorite is L-D, but only if you DO NOT SPREAD! I have judged at Nationals and have watched some of the best debater's in the country debate the issues, they don't cram a bunch of junk into the round.

If you prepared a good case, defend it, respect your opponent (don't be rude) and can counter your opponent you have a strong chance of winning the round.

I expect a value, the means to measure it and contentions (main arguments).

I DO NOT LIKE CRITIQUES! All your opponent has to do in the round in my book is to call you out for it and your opponent will get the win.

I expect you to be able to explain your points and defend them in CX and flow your arguments into your rebuttal. DO NOT BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS INTO REBUTTALS. Give me examples or context, so you can apply your case to the resolution. I need you to show me that you comprehend the resolution and how to apply values to it. The more you explain or give me context, the more convinced I am of your comprehension of your case and it will increase the chance of a winning ballot.

I strongly suggest that you pull your value through at every turn you can (within each contention), try to bring it into CX and of course the rebuttal. You can drop your value and value criteria if you accept your opponent, but this is risky and not recommended. At the end of your constructive and rebuttal summarize why you won!

Again, DO NOT SPREAD! If I can hear you breathe you have likely already lost the round!

I have been teaching public speaking for over 25 years. There are few careers that benefit from SPREADING! I make it a point to remind students of this!

Background: I have a bachelor's degree in English education and have been teaching language arts at Sheboygan North High School for 20 years. I have coached debaters in policy, Lincoln-Douglass and public forum for 17 years, including multiple state champions. My school's emphasis is on public forum.

It is best if you think about me as a fairly well-informed member of the public to get my ballot.

As far as public forum, I appreciate being given a clear framework to weigh the impacts and other voters in the round.

Debate is an activity of communication, and speed is not effective communication. Public forum is about persuading the average American voter that your stance on the resolution is the best one.

All judges, coaches and debaters who promote speed/spread should reflect on the damage it is doing to the accessibility of the activity to prospective debaters and schools wishing to start a debate program. More skill is demonstrated by honing your arguments down to the point that they can be effectively presented in the allotted speech time rather than racing through myriad of contentions that are under-developed. Speed is not progressive; it is destroying this valuable activity.

That stated, I will listen to any arguments debaters wish to run and the speed at which they choose to speak them, even if that is not how anyone anywhere else ever speaks.

Clash is good.

Adjusting to the judge is good.

Extending your arguments with evidence and not just analytical arguments is good...but analytical arguments are also good.

I believe the rebuttals are often pivotal speeches in the entire round. I reward good ones and blame bad ones for losses, often.

Finally, despite what some public forum judges may tell you, it is not possible, in my mind, to drop arguments in pf. If it was stated, it's on my flow. You don't have to go over every single argument in every single speech for me to continue to consider it. But if an opponent fails to address a key idea, certainly point that out.

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

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

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

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

TLDR: Open minded flow judge. If nothing else, for PF read the first two technical beliefs and for LD skim it. Ask questions at start of round.

Experience: I debated 4 years at Appleton East, (1 in novice policy, 3 in PF), competing both in-state and in the national circuit. I've judged LD, PF, and policy occasionally since graduation (3 years ago).

General beliefs

Above all, I do my best not to intervene in rounds in any way. I flow well and put thought into my decision. I will be clear as to what I voted on and if you would like additional clarity feel free to reach out to me. I judge because I enjoy doing it.

How to win my ballot

Unless you provide a framework, argue why I should use that framework, and then evaluate both sides' arguments in that framework, I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds. Just because your opponent doesn't respond to your framework every single speech doesn't mean they concede it and I default to yours - if they evaluate their arguments in a different way that is still a point of debate. Make sure you don't only address why yours should be used but also why it is better than your opponents. If both sides put out a framework and just say "use mine," I'll also default to the offense-defense paradigm. This has a few implications for how I make my decision.

First, turning your opponents arguments is great - if you have the evidence. You have to have offense to win a debate round, unless you can prove otherwise based on the resolution. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out. Third, if you say you are dropping an argument that's fine, but understand that if your opponent has offense on that argument I will keep the offense regardless of whether or not something is said.

Speed

I do not care about how fast you talk in PF. For LD, I can usually handle a 6-7. If I can't understand you, I will yell "Clear". Debate jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know.

Extensions

Just saying "extend this piece of evidence" is not gonna be enough to win you a round, especially in your final speech - explain WHY it wins you the round.

Speaks

I will reward debaters for clarity, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, and topic knowledge. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance at the end of the day. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

Just don't be a jerk to the other team in the round and be mindful of your noise level during their prep time/speeches (mainly for PF).

PF

Technical Beliefs about PF

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

SECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL

- I do not believe that that second speaking team must return and answer the entirety of the first rebuttal as the time skew is much too great. I do think that this second speaking team should adapt to the round and answer major offense that could be damning to them in the speech.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater, my partner and I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am willing to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. But, understand that if one part of your link chain is broken, or your opponent successfully argues the link chain isn't so solid to start with, your big impact will be drastically reduced.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

Evidence

- During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in three scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Ok, if you’re a PFer, this is where you can check out.

LD

Topicality

Bad topicality debates are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever.

To more easily win a T debate, debaters should have two things:
1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution. This doesn't necessarily need to be carded.
2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why.

Counterplans

I don't like hearing bad or cheaty counterplans, but if you win the flow, I'll still vote on it. Bad, cheaty cp's are really bad, but good ones I really enjoy hearing. Counterplan theory is a good way to answer this. I default to rejecting the argument and not the debater. Also, seeing as people in state don't really run counterplans that well, I need to hear a net benefit to the aff, that is, what does your counterplan do that the aff doesn't. If you don't have that it's going to be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Theory

I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some poor answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally, I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality).I really dislike super frivolous or metatheory debates, so if that is your prerogative, strike me. Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. If you just blow through like 5 subpoints in just as many seconds, I will probably not catch all of it. If I don't catch it, I won't be flowing the "extension" of it in later speeches.

Kritiks (Adapted from a policy judge's paradigm that I agree with)

Typically, I see K debates as a double-edged sword. Usually, teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:
1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves
2. A link that is specific to the affirmative
3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate; the impact debate is oft-ignored by the negative
An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

K affs

I'm cool with them. I have had limited experience running and judging k affs, so take that with a grain of salt.

Disads

If we ain't cool with disads, what are we even doing? A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts of the affirmative. It's cool if they act as the net benefit to a counterplan or on its own.

Good luck, and don't be afraid to ask any other questions before the start of the round.

Regards,

Judge

Speed – I haven’t been judging debate enough to keep up with my practice of listening to speed. I am sure after hearing a round or two I may be back to my coaching days. However, I would caution on the side of speaking slower than what you may be used to, so that I may ensure I follow the entirety of the debate. I understand the advantage of having multiple arguments on the flow. I would be more impressed with the way arguments are used within the round.

Arguments – All germane arguments are on the table.

Critical Arguments – When I listen to critical arguments I really appreciate if the tenets or the claims are threaded throughout the entire debate. This goes for both sides. Those who propose the critical argument should provide a general summation of the argument and then provide the important “pillars” of the idea. Those opposing the idea should consistently find time within their speeches to (re)iterate the “why” as to their winning their position.

Judge as Judicator – My intention is to try to remove all bias from my decision within the round. I try to maneuver in such a way that I examine what arguments were presented and how were the speakers “using” them to persuade me to either side. This means I try to create good flows. Clarity and an appropriate speed and volume are essential. As an educating activity FIRST, we must all work together to make the activity enjoyable for the simple fact of learning something new. Therefore, all EDUCATION voters will be a big thing for me in any theory debate. Furthermore, I would implore the speakers to use the founding principles of the movement of debate (i.e: extensions, cross-applications, direct clashes, etc.). I would even go so far as to ask that you blatantly use these words when you are performing the skill. This helps me “envision” the flow of the debate round with more clarity which will ensure a fairer decision.

Prep Time – I will keep my own time for the speeches and prep. My clock will be the primary clock referenced in round. Flashing a constructive will not be timed. Asking to see a specific card before your team’s speech will be timed when the piece of evidence is presented, or 30 seconds has elapsed. I do it this way to ensure fairness for both parties. If the opposition team is taking to long to find the card that was asked for after hearing it read, then they gave their opponents a free 30 seconds of prep time. Both teams are subject to this standard of accountability. This means cards should be called for at the top of the cross examination period by the questioner and the partner of the opposition should be searching for the request while cross-examination continues.

Email for fileshare:

umstotd@elmbrookschools.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a impacts/solution judge. Meaning Impacts and solutions to impacts play a big Factor in deciding a close round and Winners. In other words I like to see What impacts outweigh the other and whether or not you have solutions that will either prevent or postpone those impacts. If you make drops or fail to properly extend arguments I will consider them when deciding a winner. I dislike speed, but I can flow it to a certain extent, and I will give you verbal cues if you are going too fast.

Background:

I debated PF for four years, went to NCFL three times in PF. I debated LD for a month and have primarily judged LD the previous years.

I've been judging pretty consistently since Fall 2017.

I'm currently a Political Science PhD candidate, so I have an extensive background in a lot of theories and the current events in the world. If you want to run some political theory- beautiful.

LD:

I am a mostly traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks and Theory, but I will pick it up if it is run really, really well.

And by really, really well, I mean God-Tier. There is nothing worse than underdeveloped theory. Ks can be fun and interesting, but only if run right.

Honestly, I kinda hate T Shells. Debate about the topic at hand, don't debate about debate.

FOR NCFLS: LD is NOT ALLOWED to use a plan or counter-plan. I WILL be following this, as per NCFL rules.

PF:

I like weighing and cost-benefit analysis. Body count is something that I weigh heavily in rounds. Make sure you have evidence to back up your points!

Also, I'm rather strict on the rule of not being allowed to bring up new evidence or points in final focus.

Time:

I will keep track of time. Please use your time wisely. If you go over, you can finish your sentence/thought, but anything more than that I will stop flowing.

Speed:

I can handle speed, but not a fan of spreading. It doesn't belong in LD/PF. "How do you know you are spreading?" you ask. Are you hyperventilating or foaming at the mouth? Yes? That is spreading. Calm down, please. No need to die mid-debate.

How I calculate Speaks:

Organization in speeches (Line by lines or clear signposting are beautiful)

Good, thought-provoking questions in cross

Speed and annunciation are balanced (don't talk so fast that you cannot get words out properly)

Being civil (this is debate, you don't need to be your opponent's friend. But please do not yell, scream, insult, threaten, etc. Also don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.)

I don't exactly care if you swear (some judges are sticklers on that), but don't drop f-bombs every other second.

Oral Critiques/Disclosing:

I will usually give oral critiques if both teams want me to. If you ask me to give you feedback, feel free to ask a question, but please don't yell at me if you disagree. Thanks.

I'll disclose if both teams want me to, unless I need more time to re-look over my flow and organize thoughts or if the tournament does not allow disclosing. If any person does not want me to disclose, I will not, unless required by the tournament directors.

FOR NCFLS: Oral critiques and disclosing are not permitted at NCFLS.