**Updated 11.02.20**

gmail: william.m.donovan@gmail.com

sensitive material: max.donovan@pm.me (this email is encrypted by proton mail)

please direct complaints to the former as I check it more often.

He/Him/His

TLDR: My opinion is one of many, and this round is just one of many. Treat them as such. Be kind, be open, and be willing to lose for what you believe in– you will have transcended this activity.

Head Coach Madison East High School. Competed in LD, PF, Extemp, and CX on the Colorado/National circuits for 4 yrs in high school. Also Congress.

Truth, kindness, forgiveness, and honesty over tech. It has never been appropriate to manipulate representations of people's lives as part of a game, but it is a practice that has become normalized in an activity that prioritizes winning over truth. If we are to overcome the deadly cynicism of our abundant society we are all responsible for taking radical steps toward treating our lives and those of others as very real. This ideology is central to who I am and it effects the way I interact with debate. Primarily in that I think each round is a real discussion and that I, as a human being and not a blank slate, am inherently a part of it. If you would like to advocate, inform, protest, perform, write, build a coalition, make friends, work on art, learn about government, develop policies, have a conversation, test your ideas against other debaters, etc., I would love to work with you and try to facilitate those projects. To address the elephant in the room– I have nothing against traditional policy discussions but I will not privilege them. I will be thinking about the round from a basis of reality– two debate teams and a judge in a room trying to figure out what to do in the world– unless you give me reason to abandon reality and embark on an illusion with you (there is always room for imagination, theory, and fabulation). If you are here to try and pick up ballots, you probably want to pref me very low, but I think discussions with those you disagree with are often the most fruitful, so maybe email me anyway.

As you might be able to tell, I have little reverence for the structures or constructs of the activity and believe many of them are unnecessary or actively harmful. Time yourselves (or don't), sit or stand, use your allotted time in CX/prep how you want to, but please be respectful of the other people in the discussion. I will only intervene if you are being abusive toward the other students, so if both teams agree to some altered format, please have at it. I think rigid adherence by judges and coaches to traditional structures shuts out student voices, so it is one of my projects not to give special treatment to familiar arguments or debate formats just because they have been accepted into the norm. Debate is a part of our reality though and I am not going to play dumb about shorthand or the history of arguments– there are often reasons certain arguments and formats are popular, but not all of those reasons are good. What is the role of the ballot? It buys us some time from tab to have a meaningful conversation. I will always try to have a good reason for voting, but that reason will not always follow standard course.

My dream rounds are relaxed, concise, and collaborative. This really just means please do your best to approach truth with the other team. Collaboration doesn't require agreement (and often requires criticism), but it does preclude hostility. I do not take kindly to deceit, grandstanding, interruption, or other forms of hostility as strategies. Power comes in solidarity so I am more impressed when abuse is resolved than when it is exploded. Alleging a theoretical violation shuts down productive conversation, but it is crucially important when other teams are acting in bad faith. If you're going to allege a theoretical violation (I include topicality in this category) please gut check the abuse first. When you argue theoretical violations as a strategy you cheapen those arguments for when actual abuse has occurred and shut down meaningful conversation. If you've decided an argument is actually abusive (as in– is a significant obstacle to your ability to participate in the discussion), please provide a comprehensive model of the debate round (e.g. role of ballot/role of judge, competing interpretations v. reasonability, drop the debater v. drop the argument) or I will default to my own standard of reasonability, and I do not think topicality or fairness are essential to a good debate round.

Please be open to admitting fault, apologizing, and to receiving apology when an abuse has been leveled against you. If the transgressor apologizes and changes their behavior I will be very reticent to vote on the abuse. Alternatively, if the abuse is minimized by the transgressor I believe that anger is a valid and righteous form of advocacy on behalf of the transgressed and will not hold it against you.

The cardinal sin as far as I am concerned is an inauthentic advocacy, especially in critiquing another team. Not only are you (k)riticizing the other team's behavior, you are doing so as an exploitative performance of outrage for personal gain. The contents of a K are often a dire call for change from a person who is being suffocated by existing power structures. When you exploit their words as a debate strategy you participate in an act of violent cynicism that takes power from their advocacy and contributes to their suffocation. Please, join a cause if it speaks to you, lift a voice if others need to hear it. I will always assume authentic intent (and I look very negatively on cynical arguments that seek to discredit the authenticity of another team's advocacy– @psychoanalysis). This is just a plea that you critically evaluate your own motivations and ask yourself whether you are contributing to an author's fight or if you are coopting their movement for a ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I have been made aware that my time as an LD debater makes me more amenable to post-modernist critique and psychoanalysis than most policy judges. I do not identify as a utilitarian, a humanist, or a neoliberal and I have spent enough time critiquing those ideas that I do not subconsciously default to them as a framework for evaluating impacts. If anything I lean toward an anarchic deontological model that prioritizes biological autonomy for individuals; political, social, cultural, and moral autonomy for communities; and temporary representative democracies for projects larger than that. I do not believe life has inherent value, but I do believe it has immense potential. Our souls, minds, and lives are not always ours to make or ours to lose, but when given the choice we should pursue life even at the cost of death.

I will talk to you for hours about your cases, my decisions, etc. so please reach out.

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.

Tabula rasa, will default to Policy or Stock issues (Depending on whats easiest for me to evaluate, Don't let me do this).

Background: 3 years policy debate in northern Michigan, judged novice/JV for Detroit Urban Debate league while in college.

Speed: Ill say clear 3 times, after third time ill stop flowing until I can understand. Slow down your tags from the rest of your speech and you should be fine.

K: Generic K's are Bad, Strong links are good. If you run a K, make sure you really take the time to explain your link.

T: T is my favorite argument as a judge. T, Extra T, FX T, I love it all but only when it actually has in round impacts, otherwise its pretty useless. Best way to prove in round abuses is to point to actual arguments made in the round as "This is why you need to vote for us on this"

Idk how flashing evidence works anymore but back in my day, teams either had to provide a viewing laptop or a USB stick. Whatever way is agreed upon before the round starts Ill allow. I will always side with the team with less technological availability when settling disputes. If a team is unable to provide their opponents with a copy of their speech, they will forfeit the round.

tag teaming/Open CX: I'm ok with this as long as it isnt abused. If its just a couple questions throughout CX then thats fine, but if it becomes abusive Ill dock speaker points, but it won't effect the rounds outcome.

Brice Hansen

PGPs: he/him, they/them (no preference)

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

as of 10/28/21
About me:
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my 8th year of judging/assistant coaching. I graduated from UW-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in political science focusing on political theory and ideology and a minor in math education. Currently I am a Graduate student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities in a Social Studies Master's Degree and Teacher Licensure program.

Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you have and can explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, then for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go or be evaluated.


Specifics:

Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points

Please include me in the email chain: bricedhansen@gmail.com

Arguments: I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are arguments/authors I will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

Delivery: In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, I might actively refuse to acknowledge any of them because I think it's malpractice and absolutely and laughably ridiculous. So just like don't do that, you're better than that.

Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs, performance affs, and kritikal affs. In fact, I'd encourage you to test one out or run one. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff. If you want to win on T, framework, or a call of abuse it has to be the focus of your last rebuttal and evident, otherwise I won't give it much weight in what the round came down to.

Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.

Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.

Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is well beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the negative block and isn't the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.

In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rulemonger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question, if you don't ask them about it then go for a-spec you are actively wasting everyone's time and it's clear as glass. 

DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.

CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.

Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, make it constructive though and remember not every K is exclusive to others.

Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I may be the judge but I don't set the rules of debate, I just have a say over what is fair. If you feel that the resolution is insufficient for the moment as the aff then go beyond and make the case why the resolution isn't enough, the debate space is a space for advocacy and the discussion of ideas so it's vital to have that discussion here. Just don't mistake settling for the resolution and presenting a plan as the end of one's advocacy, dual power is an important praxis and there may be many other plans a team may wish to advocate for but only can pick one for this space.

Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.

Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is probably how I will be evaluating the round if it's pulled through in every speech. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.

I have a tendency to see the 2NR and 2AR as speeches that narrow down each side to their final arguments. It's not that 1R's are less important they're like the staging grounds for the final arguments, but if you intend to win on something then bring it up in the 2R. I don't want to vote on something you aren't convinced you won on, and if you are convinced you won an argument and are convinced that it should win you the round, it better be in the 2R.

Hot takes:

If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious.

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

Saying Cap is as good as it gets is gonna take some work for me

impacts that don't lead or focus on extinction are more reasonable and more likely. People suffering is an impact by itself, any impact chain that extends from there is usually indefinite speculation or hyperbole that detracts from actual suffering that is more likely to happen and is ongoing. That's not to say worse impacts don't spiral from chains of events, but that most of the time there is a minimum definite impact of suffering.

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.

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a pretty frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind.
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/K Affs-I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

PF Paradigm – I come from a policy debate background and until recently have been almost exclusively a policy judge. Due to this, I know that I tend to view rounds under a somewhat policy framework. What is the plan, what are the problems, and how does the plan solve these problems? I also understand that not every PF topic is going to fit nicely into this mold. To help mitigate this tendency I am looking primarily to the quality of argumentation in the round.

What does this mean for you?

· I am looking for a round where the debaters are clear and understandable, willing and able to give good arguments.

· I much prefer a single quality argument over 5-10 short arguments with no substance and I ultimately want the debaters to tell me why the world is better under their plan or side of the topic than the opposing team.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· Give me a reason to vote for you. Tell me what is important in the round and why it is important. If you don’t, I default to a utilitarian evaluation of the round.

· I am perfectly willing to listen if you have evidence that says a source is bad, but you need to have evidence. I’m not going to drop a card just because you don’t personally like an author. In addition, saying that a source is biased can be a decent attack, but you need to give me evidence that disproves the source in addition to this.

Ultimately, if you focus on good argumentation, you should do just fine in front of me.

Policy - I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the United States under the given resolution. In the round, you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.

Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking speed and that is fine given the time constraints in the round but there is no need to speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.

Topicality – This is something that I feel can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing it in the round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First, the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.

Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place where most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real-world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.

CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.

K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real-world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.

Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in the round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategic option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.

I debated for four years in high school on the Minnesota circuit, making it to state and nationals a few times. I am fine with speed, but you MUST be understandable. If I can't tell what you are saying, chances are it won't be on the flow and someone will be upset. I have no preference towards policy/critique based debate, just prove to me why you should win. An easy way to get the ballot is to do impact analysis. Please do not be rude during cross ex, or in any other part of the debate. Tag team cross ex is fine. I don't have any objections to arguments, so juts read what you think you can win on.