About Me - I have debated policy at Glenbrook South for three years.

**Please put me on the email chain - aaralis27@gmail.com

Top Level - If you don't flow, I will dock speaker points. Be nice to your opponents; debate should be an inclusive activity where everyone feels welcome. I will not vote on any offensive arguments.

Topicality - I think topicality can be a really convincing negative argument if done properly. You need to extend your impacts throughout the debate and explain why the world of debate under your interpretation is better than the aff's counterinterpretation. I think that the best aff arguments are based off aff ground and overlimiting, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Counterplans - I am fine with any type of counterplan as long as there is some sort of solvency advocate. The more specific to the aff the better. I think solvency deficits can be the weakest part of counterplans, especially ones that aren't specific to the aff, so be sure to address them thoroughly.

Theory - Theory debates are not my favorite, but if the negative team is being abusive, then you should go for theory. It is important to extend your impacts throughout the debate and explain how they ruined topic education and decimated ground. I think the limit for condo is three, but I can be convinced three is abusive.

Disadvantages - I'm a big fan of disadvantages. I prefer there to be specific links. I think the aff team should extend some type of offense on the disadvantage because its hard to win there is a low risk of a disadvantage with defense only. That being said, impact calculus is the most important part for both the aff and neg.

Kritiks - These are not the type of debates I like to judge. Other than the Capitalism K, I am not familiar with kritiks. This means if you go for a kritik, you really need to explain to me which part of the aff you disagree with and why that is bad. Specific links are a must and a link of omission is not a link. I tend to lean aff on framework, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Final Thoughts - With all this being said, you should run whatever you feel comfortable with and whatever your style is. The most important thing is to have fun!

Question: Am I a bad judge?
Answer: Maybe? Probably. I'm either dumb or just slow.

Disclaimer: I have not judged since 2021. Go easy on me

Experience: I debated policy three years for Neenah High School (WI) and have been judging/coaching since 2016. I was an ok (subpar) debater with some nationals experience, but I was double 1s so evaluate that however you want. Most of my judging these days is LD but don't expect me to be an expert on the topic. I have judged maybe once this season.

Paradigm: Tabs. I'm good with speed, if I can't understand you I guess I'll say something. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. I am pretty good at following K proper flows. I can have a hard time with heavy theory debates. That being said, feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with.

In Round stuff: I really really really would prefer you to time your own speeches/prep/cross. I am very disorganized and absent-minded so I will probably forget to write down the prep usage or start speech times late if at all. Its also just good practice to be mindful of time in a round.

If its allowed at the tournament put me on the email chain.

Special Notes: You are responsible for the language that you use in the debate round; racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, or any other discriminatory speech will not be tolerated.

-Anything Else-

Feel free to ask me before a round. Chances are you know more than I do, I generally think I know what I'm talking about but I probably don't.

My email is isaacdorn@gmail.com

Email me if you have any questions about your ballot or my paradigm, I'm happy to reply!

-More Detail-

-Affirmatives-

Policy affs with a plantext: Go for it.

Plantext affs with K impacts: Go for it

Non Traditional Affs (advocacy, narratives, performance, kritikal, etc.): Go for it, but make sure to clearly extend case. Also I need a clear ROB so that I know what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

-Negatives-

DAs: Go for it.

CPs (Consult, Process, Agent, etc.): Go for it, make sure there is a clear net benefit. I tend to grant affs a bit more leeway when it comes to solvency as long as there isn't a competitive fiat debate. I also appreciate good explanations of the perm on both sides (i.e. whether there is functional severance, redundancy, works/doesn't work etc.). Some caveats; I have a history of defaulting affirmative on counterplans that I am unclear on or if the permutation debate seemed muddled to me (I am, however, beginning to shift my mindset on this towards tech>truth)

Ks (any kind): Go for it. Love em'. Like I said, I can keep up with K proper flows. Make sure your alt and link are clearly explained. While I like kritiks, I prefer for them to be educational rather than strategically ambiguous. Although I'm comfortable with my literature base, I will not do the conceptual work for you. You must adequately explain the content of your kritik.

T - Let me preface this by saying I have never voted on T. That being said, there are a few things you need to do to win a T debate in front of me. 1) Clear and present standards AND voters 2) In round abuse (which could be strategically planned) or a compelling reason for me to vote on potential abuse 3) Commitment in the 2NR, the argument is theoretically that you can't engage with a non-topical aff, if you spend half the 2NR with offense on the aff that makes your argument less compelling. IMO Topicality is a tool to keep affirmatives in check, I am much more Truth>Tech on the T flow.

-Theory-

Most of my squirreling on panels is usually because my understanding of theory. I didn't really get it as a debater, so most of my knowledge comes from my experience as a judge/coach/just thinking about it. I think my biggest problem with theory is that it is often presented as a series of quick one-liners that don't have a ton of substance. Seeing that I've never been great at flowing my preference is depth over breadth on theory.

(Update) I will not retract my previous statement, however I have developed my thought process some more. When you are engaged in a theory debate in front of me, make sure you have two things. 1) A sufficient claim that you meet your interpretation of debate better than your opponent. 2) Comparative offense calculus so that I as a judge understand why I should care about your interpretation of debate.

I will for sure vote for theory arguments in a debate, if I can understand them.

IN LD:

The WDCA requires that I add the following to my paradigm

Apply all of the above and...

Framework: Framework is an important aspect of your case and should not be neglected. Don't ignore offense on your FW.

V/VC: I don't need to see a Value/Value criterion in your case in order for me to vote for you. But you are responsible for making a cohesive argument as to why it is important for you to ignore this structure.

Plantexts: Go for it. I come from policy so honestly I would prefer a plantext.

CP: I think a CP is a fundamental part of your offensive toolkit on the negative and you should take advantage of this as much as you can.

Kritik: Kritiks are great. Don't expect me to do the legwork for you though, see above for specifics. Extend your evidence.

What I vote for in LD: Generally I will be voting for the team which understands their case more. Refer to my paradigm for what I like to see in a round.

i go to glenbrook south and usually run kritikal arguments, but please do not change your argument style for me.

i enjoy watching policy debates, but you just might have to explain the da/cp to me more in depth.

please flow and be present in the round! if you don't show you care, i won't either.

i think a lot of debates come down to impact work done in the 2ar/2nr - so please do impact analysis in these speeches.

overall, i will pretty much listen to any arguments unless it's problematic+offensive.

please be nice in round! it is important, and it will help your speaks. confidence is key, just please be respectful.

also, feel free to email me with any questions - maddiedm1340@gmail.com. most importantly, try your best and have fun! :)

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

I am considered a true tabula rasa (blank slate) judge. I have coached debate for 6 years in two different districts, and debated throughout my high school and college career. I allow any argument to be made, and will vote on any argument that convinces me on why that team should win.

I don’t have any preferences to speed or types of arguments, but if you make an argument, please understand the argument you are making. For this reason, I dislike Topicality since many debaters use it as a time-suck with no real violation or strategy. I allow, and sometimes enjoy, debate theory, and encourage young debaters to educate themselves on such.

Ultimately, I tend to suppress any preconceived ideas and biases I have during a round, so feel free to run anything. Whichever arguments stand at the end of the round wins!

Carpe Diem!

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 16 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2022-23: 7 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

1. I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
2. Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
3. I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
4. If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
5. If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

1. Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
2. Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
3. I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
4. Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
5. Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
6. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

Who is this cat?- I graduated from the University of Illinois in May after doing Parli for three years ('19-'22). I was the assistant coach at Ronald Reagan College Prep in Milwaukee. I debated policy at Reagan for four years, (`15-`19). (he/him/his).

Yes, email chain- thenimajn3b@gmai.com

TL;DR- Debate is a game. Analysis and argument-making win my ballot. Stay organized, consistent, and strategic and you'll have success in any round. My paradigm is quite lengthy, but don't let it deter you from running what you are the best at. There isn't a single way to win my ballot, there are arguments that I prefer, but that doesn't mean you should run them just to fit my vision of a debate round. A good rule of thumb is to do what you're the best at.

Specific Arguments- Don't get too caught up in all of this, it is just my preferences, I think if you tend to run a specific argument, then look into my preferences on this, but if not, this really isn't all too important. I tend to judge policy, but if you want to look into my preferences in LD, Parli or PF, that's near the bottom.

CP- It isn't too easy to win on a CP unless it is abusive. The debate community, in general, has seemed to forget something- perms are tests of competition. This is a saying that's been said and resaid a hundred times, without much of an understanding of its meaning. Perms do not offer any advocacy. Thus, the affirmative team cannot gain anything offensively from running a perm. One cannot perm a counterplan and make speeches centered around "The world of the perm." A perm is not advocacy, it is merely a test of competition, and a means to hinder the offense that the negative team can gain from running a CP. Also, CPs do not have to be topical. It is difficult to think of a CP that is not mutually inclusive, thus, it does not have to be topical. Presenting a Net Benefit in terms of a DA or a means to solve the Aff's contentions better than they are able to is one of the few ways I believe that offense can be gained by the negative team. A CP needs to have reasons why to vote for it, just CP text isn't going to move the needle for me. I think PICs are pretty cool, but also they're pretty dangerous if you're bad with theory. Related to this, I am a huge fan of theory in response to CP's. CPs tend to be pretty abusive if they aren't permeable, so take advantage of this!

DA- Admittedly, I've become more and more policy since graduating high school. I really like DAs- I think they're the easiest way for the neg to win in any round. With that being said, the ease is double-sided, as this non-complex nature doesn't hide any true motives, meaning they aren't very difficult to respond to. Putting it simply, a reliance on a DA as the neg's sole offense in a round makes my ballot very easy to fill out. Thus, if you plan on, and you want to run a DA, do it well. Missing an argument missed by either side not flowing makes it quite simple for one side to win quite easily. When it comes to big stick impacts, I am not going to bring any personal biases to conflict with the round. You're going to have to do that yourself on framework. Tell me why nuclear war doesn't matter, or why to prefer structural impacts. Please run framework that runs best in line with your impact, as it makes it easier to write my ballot.

Framework- Somehow I've managed to include the importance of framework in almost every single rundown of arguments. I think framework should be a thing in every single round. Run it well, respond to it well, and tell me what viewing the round under your framework means. I think unless it comes down to t or completely dropped arguments, I am going to use framework to decide my ballot on which impacts I see as important, and what mechanism is the most important to vote under. Framework should be the base of any well-built case, even if you are relying on low-probability, high-magnitude impacts. Please run this, as it makes the round make a lot more sense, and it makes it possible to remove any covert biases I have towards arguments or impacts.

K- I was a K debater in high school. I understand that something like Wilderson or any Capitalism K can be run against any affirmative. This is not necessarily a bad strategy, but it relies on the negative team winning and expanding upon the link debate and the alt debate (I don't think I've ever seen a K impact be contested). The weakest part of the K is generally its alternative. I do not require the alternative to be ontological per se for the negative team to win on a K, but I expect that the alt is well expanded upon and actually explained. Unless the aff is losing on case, I find it difficult to vote for a world that I don't really understand, and a muddy alt presents a confusing world. The same ideology about perms for CPs holds true for K's. The affirmative team cannot win on a perm without also winning case. The best-case scenario for the affirmative if their contestation on K/CP is a perm is that this perm is a wash. Because perms are tests of competition and not advocacy, offense cannot be gained by the perming team. Please tell me what voting for the K does. If it isn't anything out round, that's fine, but I want a ROTB on the K.

On Case- I think one of the most important parts of a debate is the affirmative team's framing of the round. To offset the neg getting the neg block, and back to back speeches, the affirmative teams get the first and last speech. Your should make the best use of this by telling me, and contesting what is the most important argument to vote on, or what theoretical lens to view this round through. I think this goes both ways- rounds have the most clash, meaning the best education and competitiveness when on case is responded to thoroughly and throughout the round. I understand it could be a team's strategy to completely disregard case and argue completely for their case or k, but by abandoning any argument on case, the framing of the round needs to be won as well. When it comes down to it- I'm going to go back on my flows and view the framing of the round in the 1ac. Even if case is a nonfactor, framing by the affirmative team, and contestation of this framing is incredibly important. On case proper- I love case turns. It's a lot easier to make turns when they're based off of your knowledge of the topic, and the current political happenings, as teams tend to rely too much solely on reading cards for case. Watch the news, read articles, and stay updated- this makes it easier to base case-specific turns around, and an easy way to take out a ton of aff offense. Flowing is probably the most important when it comes to responding to case. Flowing, and line by lines is what separates good and great debaters, and this is most important on case, as it is what the majority of rounds can come down to.

Speed- Speed is fine. If the other team can't handle it, speak up, please. I understand that rounds being online makes it quite difficult for those who had trouble with speed in person. Feel free to "clear" your opponents during the speech. If they don't change, then this is grounds for in round abuse if you want to run with an argument similar to this. In general, spreading your opponent out of the round isn't a very good strategy, but to each their own. If you start talking prior to the round, and your audio quality is poor, then I might ask you not to spread, because it isn't fair to anyone. If you don't adapt to your situation, then poor speaks should be expected. Just because you can spread, doesn't mean you should.

T- In order to win t, I think you have to be winning the argument convincingly. If rounds are close and the neg goes for t, then it was likely the wrong decision. Neg should go all in on t, at least eight minutes in the neg block and all five minutes in the 2NR. Explain to me what abuse occurred in the round, and have specific standards. I want contextualized abuse and voting issues if you expect me to vote for you on topicality. Is t an RVI? I don't know, but I'd love to find out. Do the work for me.

Theory- Since high school, I've fallen more and more in love with theory. I think that t can be run in basically any round, but it also can very easily be run poorly. One of the most important parts of either running or responding to t is making sure you flow. I don't think a team should go into a round expecting to run theory, but it is something that one may have in their back pocket in a response to a specific argument. One of the best parts about theory is that it hinges on thinking on the spot, as blocks really aren't a thing for most theory analysis. I think very little is off the table for theory, and this goes for the response to it. I'll listen to an RVI, but a lot of it just comes down to the work that you put in, and how well you flow.

LD Specific
-Do what you're the best at
-Frame how I should vote and see the round, I'm not going to do too much work for you
- I don't understand the hullabaloo about being nice, especially in LD; this isn't a manners class. We're here to debate, not to make each other feel better about ourselves and brown-nose the guy who's writing the ballot. Be aggressive, be confident, and just give me a competitive round where you are the best debater version of yourself.
- A climate of judging debaters based on how they dress or present themselves makes me sick to my stomach, please just do what you're the most comfortable with within the round.

Parli/NPDA Specific
-I'll pause POO's but not POI's
-I don't expect either side to accept more than two POI's during a speech; it is your side to advocate for yourself and be specific. Prior to answering a POI, I like to say "One out of two" or "Two out of two," just so I am blatantly consistent.
-If you're more comfortable with policy jargon, don't bother correcting yourself. I still view it as the Aff v Neg, rather than Gov v Opp.
-Give me a weighing mechanism or I'll just vote on net benefits.

PF Specific
-I'm not a big judge intervention guy in a round. I'm not going to step in if belittling is occurring. The majority of you are nearly adults, and I'm sure you can act like it.
-Please don't make me intervene in cross-fire
-Please just keep me posted on where you're going. Do whatever you want honestly.
-Don't interrupt or use crossfire to make arguments; it's not another rebuttal, it is a questioning period.
-Straight policy rounds get dry, throw some crazy philosophy in there if you feel like it.
-I've done PF, but I'm a policy debater at heart, aff is pro and neg is con

Policy Specific
-Open cross-ex is fine, utilize this however you want. Debates can be won and lost in CX
-Tech>Truth
-Impact calc in 2NR/2AR
-Splitting the block is a thing
-Don't be an a-hole. I understand that policy is generally one of the more competitive types of debate, but keeping your calm is important in CX. You can be witty without being mean
-Stay organized, signpost

A Final Word
I'm a white male, and debate is a community that has long been monopolized by people of my same race and gender. I have privileges that I may not be completely aware of and I may commit microaggressions within a round. Please tell me, privately or publically if I do something that makes anyone in the round uncomfortable.

Post-rounding is fine, I'm flawed as a person and a judge, and my paradigm is constantly adapting to the experiences I have and the rounds I have. I'll make mistakes, and miss analysis, and I apologize if I do. I try to be a good judge, but I'm a flawed human being just like you. I seem to update my paradigm after every tournament. My paradigm is far from ever complete, and I have rounds and experiences which shape what I value in a round, and what preferences I have.

If you have any questions about my ballot, or you want any extra advice, my email is thenimajn3b@gmail.com

Nelson, Toni

Clean to the Wisconsin circuit, participated in Drama Debate and Forensics in Anchorage Alaska for all four years of high school (we meld it all together instead of separate seasons). Four years of extemporaneous speaking on domestic, foreign and comm topics. In drama categories I participated in Humurous Interp, Readers theater (1st Place @ state) solo and duo acting. Public Forum debate was introduced my Freshman year and I jumped at the opportunity for the fast pace style debate. I ended up moving the next year to policy debate for a more rigorous and challenging circuit, took 3rd at state with a freshman partner.

Because of my forensics background I place heavy consideration on speaking, clarity, flow, and enunciation, speak as fast as you want, I can keep up, but if you start to slur your words you will lose speaker points and of course lose some of your argument in the process. It bothers me greatly to see teams read fast only to have time in the constructive left. If this is the case, continue to use your time by bullet pointing your case/arguments you just sped read.

Public Forum

Maintain a respectable decorum at all times; not a voting issue but will affect speaker points. Do your best to be clear and courteous to opposing team and team mates, particularly during the grand crossfire.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

Arguments made with supporting evidence are great, but logical arguments will also be heavily considered. Watch for logical fallacies, if the other team doesn't call them out I can't vote against them. No new arguments in the closing speeches, use your 2 minutes to wrap up your key points. Points made during crossfire will be considered for voting, so make sure you are as clear as possible.

I retain the right to ask for any evidence that is presented during the debate from either team. Failure to produce evidence that is used to support an argument will result in a loss for the round. For example, if you quote an article or make a claim from a publication and cite the publication be sure you have it with you. Yes, this really did happen once, a team read a tag line from the "New York Times" to support their argument but was unable to produce the article they had just read for the judge. Do not do this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Debate:

Cross Examination with me is always closed, if you want open CX go to PF.

Teams: Use the CX time to listen to the questions and answers and be prepared to fill any knowledge gaps/questions left by your partner in your next speech. I do not vote on issues raised in CX, so if something important was pulled out during CX you must point it out/ create an argument based on it, in your next speech for me to take it into consideration.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

I am open to logical arguments, but know that evidence always holds the upper hand. I am strong proponent of the spaghetti method, throw everything you can and see what sticks, keep that aff team busy trying to answer all your arguments. Arguments or attacks not answered or touched by the opposing team need to be pointed out (extended) in rebuttal speeches or I consider it left on the table by both teams. There is a lot of information being thrown at you in what ends up being a relatively short amount of time, I need to know both teams are paying attention to the whole debate.

The Affirmative team Reserves the Right to Legislative FIAT, or “Let it be done”, for the most part teams do this out of common curtesy but no one use this line of language in their plans anymore. DO not make your arguments about whether congress or the president will pass this plan, for the sake of the debate we debate on the merits of the policy or plan not whether congress can pull its head out of the sand. If these arguments are made, make sure you point them out during the debate.

Topicality is a stock issue, but you need to show why a plan does not fit the resolution. An argument of "our definition of "substantial” is better than yours because it’s from blacks law dictionary" is probably not going to get you a win on topicality but feel free to try anyway (spaghetti). If your arguments boil down to DA or Harms, a topicality attack left unanswered on top of the Dis Ads may put you on the winning side. Some topicality attacks are confused with what really is an attack on inherency, so a perfectly valid inherency attack (which is a stock issue) may not be voted on because your team is arguing it as topicality which shows a lack of knowledge of the debate process, I see this more in novice.

Counterplans are fine, a negative team may also decide to kick their counterplan in favor of stronger arguments this is fine and does not constitute an automatic win for the affirmative.

I'm mostly a tabs judge, but what I'm really looking for is impact and good internal link. I hate when arguments just get dropped so PLEASE make an effort to answer the other team's arguments as competently as possible. Go as fast as you want but if I can't understand you I can't comment on your argument so speak coherently. I love roadmaps so do them throughout the round and I'll appreciate you. Time yourself if you can, it makes my life easier! I do allow open CX, but don't take that as an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent. Other than that, I'm open to any argument.

I’ve been debating for four years at Ronald Reagan high school. I’ve seen a multitude of arguments. I’m sure anything you run I’m able to handle, but the information below is more specific for each argument.

Speed- I’m not a fan, I’ll give three “clears” before I stop flowing. If I don’t flow, then your arguments won’t count. Hopefully this isn’t too much of an issue at the novice level.

Cross ex- Open cross ex is fine, but don’t dominate cross ex, I’ll dock speaker points. I don’t want to know if “it’s your cross ex” or not, so please be nice to both your opponents and partner.

DAs- These are fine, please provide a link, uniquessness and impact. The impacts should be explained thoroughly.

Ts- Explain the voters well, or else this won’t matter. I need to know the violation and it should be obvious in order to vote on this.

Ks- I have an affinity towards these

email: sierra0926@gmail.com

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".

I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.

2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments

3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively

Arguments

List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.

2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.

Other Notes

I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.

I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.