Fort Atkinson Forensics Tournament

2019 — Fort Atkinson, WI/US

Urwa Ahmad Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Baranowski Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Beverley Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a graduate student in the biomedical sciences at UW Madison. In terms of forensics and debate experience I competed four years in high school forensics (Indiana) and four years of college forensics and debate at the University of Indianapolis (nearly all forensics events and Parliamentary debate). While I had moderate success in high school, I achieved great success at the collegiate level regionally and nationally.

In terms of judging experience, I have been judging for four years at the high school and college levels (locally, regionally, and nationally) in forensics, LD debate, and Public Forum. This is my second year of judging PF on the Wisconsin High School circuit.

In regards to paradigm, I view the debate room as my classroom and thus I aim to make the round as educational as possible for you and to share a bit of the knowledge I have gained over the years. I will disclose the result at the end of the round and discuss how I reached my decision and how I feel each student could do better the next time.

I expect students to be respectful to each other and myself at all times. I am committed to being respectful to you all as well. If this becomes a problem it will be reflected in your speaker points and potentially affect the outcome of the round at my discretion (this is rare and would be discussed in disclosure and on the ballot).

I do flow the round but do not have an issue with normal debate speed. Please though have your speech’s be organized (off time roadmaps are appreciated). If you are going to fast for me I will raise my hand and say speed.

I expect students to time themselves.

I do loosely flow cross and many times cross can lead to significant turning points in the round.

I really appreciate when students weigh the round for me and provide voters and will make the decision mainly on the voters you give.

I understand why arguments are collapsed in PF but in rounds that I am judging please don’t collapse until the summary.

In regards to calling for cards, I encourage debaters to do so when they feel it is appropriate. However, I will rarely call for a card unless a debater asks me to explicitly or there is an accusation of an evidence ethics violation. In that case I will abide by the policies of the tournament.

I sincerely hope this gives you some insight into the approach I take when judging debate. Please let me know before the round if you have any questions or need further clarification.

Carri Brandt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nate Campbell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Courtney Cruikshank Paradigm

Not Submitted

Usha Datta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Burton Davis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Duncan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Max Folkman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anmol Gupta Paradigm

TL; DR: I like debate; be nice; WEIGH VOTERS/IMPACTS; read the whole thing because I’m funny and there are 🌟emojis🌟

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; debate should be 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 atmosphere. 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. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On to debate specifics:

To quote Ozan Ergungor--


i begged you


you didn't

and you


-rupi kaur

âš¡Speed: I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, make sure I can understand you. I’m not going to say “slow down” or throw a chair at 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. Down go your speaker points.

❌🔥: I don’t flow cross-ex (I thought crossfire was a better emoji pair than just two X’s) unless you tell me to. Any arguments need to be included in subsequent speeches (except FF when you’re out of luck. No new arguments).

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. As rupi kaur reminds you, WEIGH.


  1. Give me dates, names, and sources (i.e., Grammy-winning rapper and G.O.A.T. Kendrick Lamar reminds us in 2011 that "Racism is still alive, yellow tapes and colored lines") 🐐
  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 🐒

Nicole Hampton Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Becky Hansen Paradigm

8 rounds

I've been in the debate world for seven years. Spent four years coaching/judging PF and then transitioned to Novice Policy.

Novice Policy Paradigm

Have a clean round and good clash.

Be polite.

Bring a viewing computer for those who are on paper. Follow the rules.

Don't speed - I can't hear it. If it isn't on my flow it didn't happen. Yes, I mean practically normal conversational speed.

Don't say a team dropped something that they didn't. If it's on my flow and you make an accusation that is false just to try and win, you are more likely to lose instead.

I am truth over tech. I will vote for a quality argument if they don't convince me that their four arguments against it are any good. I will not vote for four arguments versus one - just because there are four.

Tell me the story. Why is your world better than their world overall?

I prefer real-world impacts to big-boom impacts. We've had zero nuclear wars since we started arguing that a thing will lead to nuclear war - but people are dying everyday from structural violence, weapons, poverty, etc.

I am open to both the K and the CP - if you can tell me the story well and don't just read piles of evidence at me.

Varsity Policy Paradigm

I never debated in high school. I have never been to camp. I exclusively coach novice policy. I believe that debate is for everyone and not just those who can afford computers, camps, and circuit legs. I am morally offended by the fact that debate is about who can be the fastest and the trickiest and not who has the best argument.

Therefore, I want to see stock issues run slowly and politely.

Inherency, solvency, advantages and disadvantages.

I do not want to be on your email chain, I want you to present evidence in round at a speed that I can understand it. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. I will not tell you to slow down 18 times. There is no time built into the round for flashing. I will charge prep until the device leaves the computer.

I hate topicality that is based solely on a back and forth regarding a definition - if they run a ridiculous plan or CP - please call them out on it. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it. I am not interested in hearing your K.

Counter plans can be good. Or they can be ridiculous. I am okay with a reasonable CP. I will drop you for a ridiculous one.

There are some teams on the Wisconsin circuit who no longer believe that the basics of debate matter. I am going to insist that they matter in this round.

Bethany Heine Paradigm

Not Submitted

Melania Hencheck Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Hilbelink Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Hill Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Terese Hummel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nick Hyatt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chris Jameson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bonnie Kanter-Braem Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lucas Krogmann Paradigm

Not Submitted

Diana McGinley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Mitchell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marissa Monson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Brittany Newman Paradigm

I'm a Pf coach and have been judging PF for years. I have also judged quite a bit of LD.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said in case (or blocks). Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world (outside of auctions I suppose) will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them. They are not useful in pf and rarely tell me anything. Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Default framework is harms outweigh benefits for all PF. Just because you have a framework and your opponents don't doesn't mean you win automatically. If they fully respond to your framework or lay out their own, even in rebuttal, I'm fine with that.

Good luck!

Patty Nickel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Peyton Pendergast Paradigm

Not Submitted

Heather Rhoades Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nathan Savage Paradigm

Not Submitted

Teresa Smith Paradigm

Not Submitted