**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.

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing.  That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff.  I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered.  A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far.  These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments.  Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1.     1.  Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when.  Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text.  If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does.  If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win.  Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism.  Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts 

2.      2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd:  “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category.  Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims.  Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor.  I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone.  It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons.  First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable.  Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times.  I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important.  Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style.  At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons.  First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below.  Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general.  I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over.  If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range.  More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations.  I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that.  But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move.  For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine.  In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking. 

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29.  I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s.  Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well. 

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre.  Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying.  Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding.  There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate.  There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions.  You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate. 

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low.  It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance. 

For all of these categories of speaker points:  landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email:  folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

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.

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!

Last update: 2/11/2020

TOP-LEVEL:

-TLDR: do what you do best, and if you do it well, I’ll try my best to be fair, receptive, and interested

-Add me to the email chain: gordon.kochman@gmail.com

-I try not to read evidence if I can help it, which means I won’t open your speech docs until the end of the round, and I’ll only do so if needed. I won't follow you in the speech doc, so if you're gonna blaze through your theory block, you might want to reconsider.

-I try to keep a straight face during speeches. If I'm being expressive, then something horrible/funny/important/etc. just happened.

-Please be kind to each other

-My last name is pronounced “coach-man,” but you can refer to me as Gordon. Whatever you do, PLEASE do not call me "judge."

ABOUT ME:

-My debate experience: I debated for four years at New Trier High School (2009-2013) and for two years at Whitman College (2013-2015) while the team existed during my tenure. I’m a former 2N/1A. I’ve been involved in coaching and judging since I graduated high school. I'm a lawyer in my day job.

-Affiliations: New Trier High School, Whitman College, University of Wisconsin, Homestead High School

-Co-founder of the Never Spark Society with Tim Freehan

-I mostly debated policy arguments and soft-left K arguments. I fully understand how these arguments are bad and boring in their own way, so simply because I debated these arguments in the past does not mean that I think they’re the best, most interesting, or correct arguments. I’m open enough to recognize there are multiple ways of debating and engaging with the resolution, both from my time as a debater and later as a judge and coach.

-Disclaimer: What is included in this paradigm is meant to help you decide where to put me on your pref sheets, strike from your strike card, or adjust your strategy before the round. Most of this paradigm includes my predispositions and (unless otherwise noted) NOT my closely-held beliefs that are firm and unshakable.

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

-Please be kind to each other and don’t be racist, sexist, ableist, or any other variation of rude/intentionally horrible.

-To the extent required, this is a communicative activity that encompasses speech. As a result, I will only flow what you say in your speech (open CX is fine). Unless provided a performative reason, I am not a fan of multiple people participating in a speech or playing a video/audio clip.

-Debate is a game, and I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy it as a game. However, I understand that debate is more than that for some people (it’s how they afford their education, it’s their job, it’s their community, etc.). I try to comport myself such that everyone can have the experience in this activity that is enjoyable. Simply because I have enjoyed debate in one way does not mean that other debaters need to conform to my experience.

-There are obvious formalities in a round that exist no matter what. These include: one team must win, speaker points must be awarded, etc.

GENERAL DEBATE PREDISPOSITIONS:

-Tech over truth in the abstract and to a point. Generally, the more “true” your claim is, the less tech you need to win it (and vice-versa). The same goes for how big of a claim you’re making. The bigger the claim, the more work that’s needed. It’s gonna take more than a one-liner to win a claim that a mindset shift occurs post-economic collapse. Arguments are claims with warrants. One-line conclusory statements aren’t gonna cut it if you don’t provide a warrant.

-Things I likely won’t vote for: I would recommend that you use your common sense here. If your argument is overtly and/or intentionally racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., then you might want to reconsider. Not only do I not want to be in those rounds, but I don’t think the team you’re opposing wants those arguments in the round, either. As a co-founder of the Never Spark Society, this might tip you off to some types of arguments I don't enjoy...

PREDISPOSITIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC AREAS OF DEBATE:

-My thoughts regarding "non-topical" affs are probably what most people want to know up-front. I never read these affs when I debated and would spend a large amount of time planning how to debate these affs, but as a judge, I don’t really harbor any animus towards these affs. I don’t think that my thoughts here should be dispositive one way or another in these rounds. If you win your argument and explain why that means you win the round, then you should win. Despite my following thoughts on topicality versus policy affs, I'm SIGNIFICANTLY less persuaded by procedural arguments on framework than by method-based arguments on framework. In other words, I'm less likely to vote on "fairness" than an argument about how we should engage with the state or try to produce change.

-Topicality (versus policy affs) is about competing interpretations of the topic. This also means that potential abuse is a sufficient reason to vote neg on T. I would extend T into the block in a majority of my rounds and think I have a relatively lower threshold for voting on T against policy affs than most judges.

-I tend to lean neg on most theory and default to rejecting the argument unless provided a reason to reject the team. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a winnable argument, and there are certainly theory arguments that are stronger than others (conditionality is significantly more viable than no neg fiat, for instance). Regardless, this shouldn’t deter you from using these arguments on the aff. As a former 2N I do have a proclivity to protect the 2NR, so be absolutely certain that your 2AR will be an extrapolation of 1AR arguments if this is your ultimate strategy.

-Most CPs are fine, with a few exceptions. Consult CPs, for instance, are probably bad. I'm fine with CPs that have internal net-benefits to generate competition. I can be persuaded by perm do the CP args on the aff.

-Is the politics DA a thing? Eh, probably not (RIP). Will I vote for it anyway? Absolutely.

-Regarding Ks, I would read soft-left Ks with a general policy strategy and go for them on occasion. I’m by no means an expert in any specific K literature. I’m not very familiar with a ton of high-theory or postmodern arguments, so your burden to explain them is relevant. The more “out there” K you plan to read, the more explanation you’ll need. I should be familiar with your argument at a basic level regardless of what you read, but it is unlikely that I understand the nuances of your specific argument unless you can explain them to me. If you’re curious if you should read your K this round or how much work you should put into your explanation/overview, I would recommend reading it with more explanation rather than less. If you can adequately explain why you should win as a result of the K, then you should win.

-I’m a huge proponent of impact turns, which unfortunately aren’t as utilized as I’d like. However, I’m not a fan of some impact turns like spark (lol), wipeout, etc.

About me:

-I use He/Him pronouns

-I debated for 3 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin on the Surveillance, China, and Education topics. All three of them were in Policy although I did do a bit of PF my first year.

-I'm have a B.S. from UW-Madison in Econ, Environmental Studies, Mathematics, and Stats and a MA in Economics from the University of Chicago

-Email: jerimiah.koll@gmail.com

-put me on the email chain, it saves time so in the situation I need to look at a card at the end of the round I don't need to steal one of your laptops to get it. (especially if its remote)

General:

Tell me how to vote and why and I'll do it as long as you do a good job explaining. That being said there are some things that require a little more work than others so take note of them below. When you extend cards/args you need to actually explain the thesis of the card and show you understand the arguments you're making, reading another card really doesn't do you any favors, pulling out warrants from your first card does much better.

If your making a fairness arg I like actual examples, hypothetical abuse or potential abuse aren't great arguments to make. That being said I generally prefer the educational value to the debate above fairness.

The more realistic your scenario is the more likely I am to vote for it. Your impacts don't have to be nuclear war causing mass extinction and I'd prefer if they weren't. Instead of nuclear war impacts use real world impacts because nuclear war isn't going to happen, if it does you can tell me "I told you so".

I'm good with speed, just try to be clear, I can't flow stuff I didn't hear. If you drop 10 perms in 30 seconds there's a good chance I miss 8 of them just like the other team. You gotta slow down for tags, perms, and the like. Also make sure you signpost so I know what flow I'm putting stuff on, if you leave it up to me there's a chance it ends up on the wrong flow. In general, going about 10% slower than your top speed is a great way to get amazing speaks and have me actually flow what you're saying. This is especially important for when you're debating online.

I didn't judge at all last year so do with that info what you will

Just because I'm on the email chain doesn't mean I'm gonna comb through your cards looking for warrants, its your job to tell me the warrants from your cards.

Random Preferences:

Topicality: I rarely ran or enjoyed T when I was debating which is a shame because I think T has the potential to be a really interesting debate but it just hasn't in my experience. You'll need to go all in on T in the 2NR to win on it, and it really helps to cite actual abuse that destroys neg ground. I'll be much more sympathetic to a team running T against a clearly untopical plan than if you're just running T as another arg. If you say "we didn't have prep on this aff" and then have case args blocked out anyway its unlikely I'm gonna vote for you. I really don't like super nitpicky T, so substantial T is unlikely to get my vote.

Ks: I really like when I have a clear picture of what the alt is and it makes it much easier for me to vote on Ks when you do that work instead of expecting me to decipher what the alt is. I ran a lot of Cap, Bio-power, Militarism, and Fem Theory and have a fair amount of experience with Enviro and Set Col lit. I have some experience with more obscure/esoteric Ks but if you have to ask if I know the lit, I probably don't. In order to win on the K you have to show me you understand what exactly the K is doing and explain the theory behind it, if you can't you're gonna lose.

Framework: I really like framework debates and its probably the most important flow in the round. If you win the framework flow there's a good chance you win the round because you just told me to prioritize your impacts. You need to show a clear understanding of both frameworks and do a good job explaining why yours is the best/leads to the best outcome to win framework. I generally default to some sort of utilitarianism, not because I'm particularly utilitarian, but its the framework that most teams implicitly use.

"Climate change isn't real/not a threat/not anthropogenic": So this isn't a great arg in the first place so I'm not sure why people like to run it but I've seen far more of it than I care for. Its highly unlikely I vote for this, the other team would have to drop the ball completely for me to say climate change isn't real. If the other team runs this arg, you should use it as an independent voter, so running climate change isn't real is a reason that team should lose.

CX: Open but its still their speech, asking all the questions for your partner will get both of you poor speaks.

Paper 1ACs: if y'all are gonna spend the rest of the round on your laptops you're wasting paper and time as a fun little strat. Don't. If you don't email it out at the end of the 1AC I will drop you.

PF:

I have much less experience with PF than Policy but don't let that stop you from running what you want to. I may have been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of teams in PF adopting speed. I understand the strategic implications of speed and all that but everything I said about speed in Policy applies doubly so in PF, you should speak 10-20% slower than your top speed given how heavy on analytics PF is.

Please keep cross civil, also remember that cross is still a speech so keep the first two (mostly) closed.

Kate Lavelle – Associate Professor of Communication Studies - Public Communication & Advocacy at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

21 years of policy debate experience as a competitor and coach [NSDA (high school) & NDT/CEDA/ADA as a college competitor (John Carroll University) and coach/Director of Forensics (Miami University, Wayne State, Augustana, Northern Iowa]

Debate in general – I frequently judged policy debate until 2013. While I have been off the circuit for awhile, I teach public speaking and debate courses at UWL. Participating in policy debate was a transformative experience for me, and as a judge, I want to help support an educational experience for everyone in the round. see my role as evaluating arguments based on how they are debated in the round. I will not read much evidence after the round or attempt to reconstruct the debate based on all of the evidence you all read.

Because I’m not actively coaching a team right now, be sure to explain topic specific arguments, particularly in the final rebuttals. I encourage topic specific arguments, but make sure that some of the jargon of the topic is discussed in the round. All major arguments in the round must have significance within the context of the round and other major arguments.

In terms of behavior, here’s the deal: if someone makes an inappropriate statement (or acts inappropriately) in the round, I’m going to say something when it happens. I love debate, and I’m happy to judge. I encourage you all to be assertive and respectful in the round. Watch my non-verbals during the round. If something is unclear or doesn’t make sense to me, you can usually tell by watching me.

Decision Calculus – fewer arguments is better for me. I would encourage you to present a variety of arguments until the final two speeches. A good 2NR doesn’t go for everything – and you should have enough development in the block to spend the right amount of time on your round winners.

The 2NR should choose 1 (if going for T or K) to 2-3 (DA, CP, case) arguments and explain why this wins you the round in spite of aff arguments. Close the door on potential aff winners (hidden theory, turn story)

The 2AR should provide a clear story for why your advocacy is superior. This could be your case, a turn story you have developed, etc. It is wise to have as much connection between the 1AR/2AR as possible, a brand new 2AR will not beat a good 2NR.

Case Specific Arguments – I follow the news, but I’m not cutting cards. I like case debates; a good case debate is developed with specific, recent evidence. As long as you explain the nuances of your case specific arguments, I appreciate these types of arguments. You are better off spending time on developed arguments than having a ton of “arguments” that aren’t developed.

Topicality – I like a good T debate. Have a copy of the resolution for me. Both teams – be specific, explain what is/not topical under the different T interpretations. I don’t have strong opinions on what is the “best” standard to evaluate T. Aff – have a good counter interpretation/definition, provide enough doubt about the negative interpretation, provide good counterstandards. T is a procedural issue, not a turn argument. Pre round, write a good plan text to avoid T arguments. Neg – have a good, contextual definition, provide specific ways that aff is potentially/actually not topical (cases, ways they explode the topic). Provide good reasons for me to vote on T. Spend time on it if you are going to go for it. Show how the plan text is not topical.

Kritiks –My academic research is rhetoric of sports. I have done some work with Orientalism, Spivak, Foucault, whiteness, masculinity, blackness, critical discourse analysis, and feminism in sports. For me, a good kritik debate is thoughtful. How does the kritik operate in the round? How does the offending team violate the kritik? (Framing of arguments, languages, solution-oriented world)? Especially in the block, go a bit slower on the K. I prefer more development of arguments in the round, as opposed to an artificial discussion of a theory. Include a brief overview and explain how the argument functions in the round.

I am open to a wide variety of critical arguments, but I have problems sorting them out in rounds when they are discussed as an abstract concept, not as a functioning argument in the round. For instance, my favorite type of kritik debate is one that operates as a solvency take out or turn. Alternative debates can be a bit hard to defend in the last speech; I think you should run them, make good arguments to why the affirmative links to the kritik, even in a world where they “solve.” If you are affirmative, make no link arguments and permutation arguments. I think that there are good arguments about why plan action and rethinking can work together. I don’t that the affirmative loses advocacy just because a kritik is run. Instead, make arguments about why you provide a more specific avenue to address the problems in the affirmative plan. As for framework debates, I think that they aren’t necessary (such as presenting them in the 1AC), but I think the affirmative has the right to defend that fiat is good. I am more interested in the substantive debate than the framework debate.

Disads – Disads are good. I like disads. Make sure that you develop impact calculus in the last two speeches. I also think that more specific arguments on DAs trump lots of blippy theory arguments.

Theory - I am kind of “eh” on theory. If you are going to win theory, I think that you need to be answering all of your opponents’ arguments, as well as making good reasons why your theory argument is better. Spend some time on theory if you want me to vote on this issue.

Counterplans - I think that you should to discuss solvency deficits between the counterplan and case. It can be frustrating as a judge if debaters don’t explain how a CP works or what the net benefits are. A short overview in the block can be a good place to provide this explanation. If you are running a super case specific counterplan, spend some time on it.

Performance – Here’s the deal – I think that performance arguments/advocacies operate like any other argument in the round, you have to defend some advocacy and explain how it functions with the opposing arguments. I know that the structure of many performance arguments can make this difficult, but I think that some attempt needs to happen (it may not happen until the end of the debate). As a judge, it’s hard to understand all of the intricacies of a performance argument when it functions in isolation to other arguments in the round.

Flowing - I flow on paper. Keep this in mind if you have very long overviews on positions.

If you have any questions, just ask!

Daniel Montalvo - Ronald Reagan HS head coach

AFF/NEG split - 2/12

Quick Facts:

• Speed is fine, just be clear and enunciate (I’ll only allot 2 “clears” before I stop flowing)

• No such thing as a tabs judge, you know this, but I will keep it close

• Do what you do best. I’ll vote on anything just tell me why (impact calc, analysis, what outweighs what, etc.)

• Most of my background is in policy until recently. Fairly newer to LD but still pretty progressive and can appreciate a clash heavy and meaningful debate

Long Version

Background: I debated policy for Ronald Reagan all four years at the city/state/national level. Currently studying hospitality + revenue management at Cornell and head coach for Ronald Reagan HS. I’ve seen all sorts of arguments and am pretty well-versed with policy strats and arguments all around.

P O L I C Y

Case: “What is left on both sides? Is there enough to move on to off case positions if the case is held?” is usually my line of thinking.

DA’s: Go for it. Not a fan of base/politics disads but I’ll vote on them.

CP’s: Make sure they are competitive. Don’t be abusive. Consult CP’s are not my favorite...

Topicality: I like T. Author debates, counter-interps, reasonability, K-T, and framing all play their roles and can make great argumentation if executed well. Ensure there is in-round abuse and do the work to get me to vote on it. If you aren't going 5 minutes of T in the 2nr that means it was probably a time suck and not well developed enough for the ballot.

K’s: My personal favorite, go for it. I’m well versed in cap, abolition, and race/identity K’s, but I will not do the work for you. I love the idea of epistemological dangers the aff may overlook or perpetuate. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, though. I will be as objective as possible and still expect decent analysis and contextualization of your arguments.

K Affs/Performance: K affs/performance have been dying down on the Wisconsin circuits but I have seen them at nat circuit tournaments. Not my area of expertise so do enough work on the aff and display why your advocacy, performance, and/or negation of the resolution effectively challenges the implications you argue for.

Theory: Blow it up. If the other team does something inherently damaging or abusive in the round, you have every right to point it out for the ballot. I can handle high level theory, though these debates can get muddy in their development so please keep them as organized as possible. I won’t vote your way just because you shout “that was abusive!”

L D

** most of my judging philosophies from policy apply to LD. some key things to note:

FWK/VC: I understand a ton of framework shells get reused as topics change but there can be dozens of the same ideology/epistemology shells with key nuances that differentiate between sides and can make for a very intricate flow. Always evaluate these differences before collapsing into your opponent's framework to maintain clash on the flow.

M I S C

• Keep the round clean and organized. Poor/sloppy structure that impacts my flow will be reflected on your speaker points

• Loud/gaspy spreading gets really annoying, especially in smaller classrooms and through computer audio so be cautious before you do it

• Any -isms or -phobias “good” arguments and I’ll drop you

• You know the drill -- have fun and don’t stop learning!

• Also, put me on the email chain and feel free to contact me if you have any questions montalvodaniel51@gmail.com

Michael Moorhead
Affiliation: Appleton East

Updated: 1/17/2017

I hardly judge debate anymore, but when I do it is generally LD. I do a little bit of coaching for Appleton East, but not in an official capacity. I prefer progressive style debating, but you are more than welcome to have a traditional values oriented debate. Beyond that, I consider myself tabula rasa and all my policy opinions stated below apply to progressive-style LD.

Updated: 11/7/15

If you're not going to participate in community norms of past argument disclosure and flashing speeches, then you should not pref me. I write this because of an experience I had while judging LD, but will say I have not experienced this to be a problem within policy debate. I will tank your speaks if you think there is any reason to not allow your competitors access to review your evidence while you are in the debate because it promotes a poor form of deliberation. I interpret your reluctance to make your evidence accessible as a petty antic to secure a minor advantage within the debate space and haven't heard a legitimate reason to think otherwise. 

Updated: 8/16/13

Experience: I debated in high school for Appleton East. Although it is a small school in northern Wisconsin, my experience is predominantly on the national circuit at bid tournaments. My 2NRs in high school were about an even split between policy based arguments and Ks. I am now the Varsity Debate Coach at Appleton East High School. 

Short Version (to be read during pre-round prep)

I believe debate is about hard work. If you do not believe the same or do not put much work into debate, you should not pref me.

I prefer good argumentation/execution above all else. I would much rather see someone get rolled on death good than a K team try to run a politics disad or vis-à-vis. As more of an abstract concept, you should do what you do best in front of me. I should not affect the strategy you were planning on running against the team you are now debating. Nearly everything in my philosophy is debatable, and you as a debater should realize that my opinions are merely that: things that are open to change. This is the part where I give the schpiel about me trying not to intervene except when only left with that option. Being involved in debate as a debater gives me an interesting perspective in that I try to judge as I think that my favorite judges did while adjudicating me. I genuinely believe I am better at judging debate than doing the debating first hand.

Long Version

Miscellaneous:

1. In complete honesty, I don’t believe I have the personal ethos to be like “I refuse to let this argument be read in front of me” and have probably read a variation of whatever you could possibly read at some time or another. The bottom line is that if you have a consult counterplan that some big wig coach wouldn’t listen to, don’t think that their opinions apply to all of us. This should NOT be interpreted as “I want to hear a time cube debate,” but more like, if someone can’t beat a cheater counterplan, then they deserve to lose to one.
2. This should go without saying, but you can read as fast as you want. If you are fast at reading, and know you can do it reasonably clearly, we will not have problems. If I am telling you to be more clear while you are speaking, you will likely have heard you have clarity issues before.
3. I am very firmly tech over truth. I believe a dropped argument is a true argument, except in the instance in which that argument is objectively false. It is worth noting, however, that you first need to meet the criteria of an argument before it has the ability to be dropped by the opposing team.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Whenever I see a good T debate with the aff emerging victorious, it is generally because their interpretation is better for debate for reasons of limits or education rather than because it seems reasonable. Reasonability (taken in any other context of debate) seems silly, and seems to necessitate intervention. The times when I am likely to lean more towards reasonability are instances in which the neg reads arbitrary definitions or has trouble defending their own. Don’t get me wrong, reasonability is very good for the aff, but is not a round winner in all instances. The real question you should ask before embarking on a T debate while neg is if you have a contextualized definition that is specific in excluding the aff you are trying to prove is untopical. If the answer to that question is yes, you will likely do well in front of me providing you can argue T technically and proficiently. Clash and impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as in any other aspect of debate. Ks of T essentially function as impact turns, which means impact calc is still a must, but make it contextual obvi (or just don’t do it because it is dumb). Aspec, Ospec and all other relevant spec arguments are generally not round winners unless the other team is pulling even more intellectually deficient shenanigans. These arguments are better suited either on CPs for questions of competition or as instances of abuse on different T violations.

Counterplans: Bread and butter of a debate. They should be competitive both functionally and textually. While counterplans that only compete off one of those have won in front of me, my presumption is that they are not entirely competitive. Just as a precursor to reading my thoughts on which counterplans are most competitive, this should mean little when preparing for a debate. What I have found generally is people willing to run process counterplans are best able to defend them theoretically. I don’t roll my eyes when someone reads a process/consult counterplan, I just think there are often more strategic options. With all of that being said, I do think the best strategic decision for the affirmative when faced with a process/consult counterplan is to go for theory (in most instances). 

In order from most legitimate to least:
Advantage CPs (ran individually)
Plan Inclusive Counterplans (not including word PICs)
Actor CPs
Multiplank CPs
International CPs
Multiactor CPs
Conditions CPs
Threaten CPs
Process CPs
Consult CPs (i.e. commissions, qtr, etc.)
Delay CPs

Theory: I don't mind theory. I default to rejecting the argument except in the instance that the debate proves irrevocably altered by the theory violation (i.e. condo). I went for condo a decent amount while in high school and think it can be a round winner but only in select circumstances. In round abuse is probably a pretty standard prerequisite to getting me to vote on theory unless you can somehow convince me otherwise. I find myself leaning neg on condo (and most questions of theory), but closer to the middle than most judges you will probably find. Being double twos in the later part of my high school career, I am sympathetic to negs that run 2 CPs and a K, but could also paint a very reasonable picture of someone going for condo in that scenario. It will truly come down to how well you argue theory in that instance. On this thread, I believe performative contradictions in a debate beg the question of why the aff couldn’t sever their representations/methodology/whatever in a similar fashion. I don’t find “they introduced those reps/methodology/whatever first” to be a captivating argument or even a logical response to perf con. A defense of multiple worlds debate being good is probably a better answer, or better yet, just not contradicting yourself. Dispo is probably condo in disguise, and if you are running a CP/K dispo together, you will likely find yourself in a pickle. Otherwise, cheap shots are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, but first need to rise to the level of being an argument. Saying “politics isn’t intrinsic” is not an argument. In the instance that someone were to drop that in the block, then you explode on it in the 1AR, I would likely not credit their arguments in the 2NR as being new simply because you didn’t make an actual argument until the 1AR. I also believe theory is a question of competing interpretations, but could see a more logical argument for reasonability on a theory flow than a topicality flow.

Criticisms: I like GOOD K debates. I have a good background in psychoanalysis specifically, typical reps Ks, and then random flourishes of epistemology based k tricks I would typically deploy while running more normative kritiks. This should mean relatively nothing to a talented debater. If you are actually good at running the K, the amount of background I have in the literature should be relatively irrelevant. I generally think that the framework debate is a race to the middle in who allows the most ground for both sides. Affs should probably be able to weigh their advantages but that shouldn’t discount questions of ontology/method/reps/etc. I can play out many instances in which the aff wins they should be able to weigh their impacts but then loses on the K turning solvency, so that is something you should look out for if you are aff. Link/impact questions are more important to me than the alternative provided you are making the proper framework arguments. As Gabe Murillo once told me, alternatives are generally 2 things. 1. Dumb and 2. Uniqueness counterplans for your K. As such, so long as you can defend that your alt can solve whatever you are criticizing, it can be as dumb as you are willing to make it. Good Neg K debaters will: Employ all of the typical K tricks (Framework, Method First, Epistem. First, Reps First, Floating PIKs, etc.); have a short overview (if necessary) articulating their position on the K in the 2NC, but a larger overview in the 2NR that would reasonably answer most levels of the K debate via embedded clash, and be talented technical debaters that do not group the perm debate. Good Aff debaters answering the K will: Leverage FW as a reason they should be able to weigh their advantages, have a defense of their method/reps/etc., make perms (double bind is probably most captivating), and attack the link of the K.

K affs/Performance: These are generally fine. They are better/more easily judged if they include a topical plan text and defend the resolution, but if your thing is running an aff with a plan you don’t defend because the state is bad or whatever then that is cool too. I find topicality arguments to be more captivating than less definitionally sound framework interpretations. I don't think that non-traditional debating is bad, but I do think resolution based debating is good. That means I probably slightly err neg on an "ideal" topicality debate, but if you are a non traditional debater and win on it often, I will be a more than adequate judge for you.

Disads: Obviously they are good and you should run them. I love a great politics debate more than anything. Refer to my theory section above about cheap shots/politics theory for more information on that. If you have generic evidence, it’s important to frame the disad in the context of the aff. Do impact calc – absent so your disad holds little relevance to the aff. If your turns case argument is garbage, it won’t get you very far unless dropped, if it’s well developed, it could be a round winner. For the aff: Don’t just contest the impact, differentiate your aff from the generic link; if the impacts of the case interact well spend some time drawing differentials/making comparisons. Conceded turns case arguments in the 1AR can be problematic if developed properly.

Former policy debater. I coached at SPASH and Appleton East from 2003 until 2014. That should probably tell you most of what you need to know about me. I am not partial to any idea or premise--tell me why you should win and articulate your thought pattern. I'm fine with Speed, Evidence, Flowing, line by line, however you want to do it. Mostly judged policy, will err on the side of who articulates a better reason for the ballot.

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.

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.

Speed - When I say that I am fine with speed, I mean that I can handle pretty much any speed, I just prefer clarity. If you are SO unclear that I can't flow you, you will notice when I stop. I will also give verbal warnings if it becomes a problem. Compared to most other judges, I like to consider I have a pretty high threshold for that point.

Quick Version - Everything is debatable. I will do my best to keep myself out of the round as much as possible. I went for both policy and critical arguments when I debated so I don't really have a preference, although I am probably better oriented with policy oriented rounds. Remember that my preferences are always available for negotiation (besides the things listed in the "unacceptable" section) so do what you do and PLEASE don't try and conform to whatever things I put on here.

Other Meta level things - I am a tech oriented judge, a good analytical argument beats a bad card everyday of the week. I also believe that a dropped argument is a true argument, however, this doesn't matter if it isn't impacted. Comparative impact analysis is a must. I try to stick to the flow. I will default to offense/defense. I think it is extremely rare for there ever ever ever to be zero risk of a link.

T - I default to competing interpretations. I think you need to have a counter-interpretation in order to make me vote on reasonability. Topicality debates too often come down to whining, whereas it should be treated like any other section of debate. Impact your arguments and do comparative impact analysis (i.e. why education outweighs fairness, etc.).

CP - They should be competitive. I believe counterplans can be textually competitive, but obviously the net benefit should be formulated as such. I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, dispo, states) and think that you should reject the argument not the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. As a side note, if running topical counterplans is your thing, then do that. Also, I can be persuaded that any differential of a link could be a possible net benefit, but if it becomes a wash, I will not be working for either side.

Conditionality- My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department because multiple counterplans make it strategic suicide for the aff to make their best answers and forecloses a real search for the "best policy option." Along this vein, unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

Kritik - I think that debate should be a model for policy-making education. Reps and generic language Ks often run from topic specific education. Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. I grant the aff a lot of leeway on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. I also grant the aff a lot of leeway about why short term extinction claims should come before questions of the K structural impacts. However, I appreciate well run Ks, and ran a fair amount of Ks when I debated, so if it is your thing, do it well.

DA - I love a good politics debate more than anything. I am less likely to vote on cheap shots (intrinsicness, vote no, fiat solves, etc.) but can be persuaded otherwise. Evidence comparisons on all levels of the disad are necessary whether you're aff or neg. If I'm left weighing impacts after the debate because no one has done any comparative work you're probably not going to like the outcome. All in all, disads are good so you should probably run them.

UNACCEPTABLE - Cheating (obviously). This includes scrolling down on the speech doc ahead of where people are reading, clipping cards, cross reading, the whole shebang. If I catch you doing this, I will assign you a loss and minimum speaker points. Hint: It is pretty obvious when people are clipping cards.

Paperless - I will stop prep time when the jump drive is ejected from the computer. Do not abuse me being lenient with such problems. If I notice you flowing the speech doc instead of the round, I will probs tank your speaks. It seems to be that a lot of debaters don't even listen to speeches of other debaters anymore. Listen to the other team and flow what they are saying, after all, debate is a communication activity.

Speaker Points - I try to assign speaker points relative of the division I am judging (i.e. I won't be as harsh on a novice as I would a varsity debater)

Standard Scale
26 (or below) - You did not speak well. You may have been mean to your partner of the other team. You need work.
26.5 - Below average. You have more work to do and more room to increase.
27 - Slightly below average, but not too bad overall.
27.5 - Average Speaker.
28 - Above average. You spoke well.
28.5 - Good. You may good strategic decisions and probably won the round.
29 - You are a talented debater and will probably be within the top 20 speakers at the tournament.
29.5 - You will probably be in the top 10 speakers at the tournament, won the round and I loved some aspect of your speech to a large extent.
30 - Your speeches were the best 13 minutes of my life

BACKGROUND (Policy Debate) ~

• Nationally ranked high school debater (2004- 2006)
• Former Director of Debate at IUPUI (2009- 2012)
• Former Director of Debate at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign (2013-2015)
• Volunteer Judge for the CUDL 4+ years
• Chicago Debate Summer Institute Instructor (Summer 2015)
• Solorio HS Coach (2015- Present)
• Milwaukee Debate League Executive Director (2017- 2020)

TL;DR (The "Round Starts in 2 minutes, Who is this judge?!") *

• Speed: Fine
• Line-by-line: Always
• Signpost: Always
• Roadmap: Yes, off the clock
• Tag Team: Meh
• Default paradigm: Policymaker
• Theory: Great
• T: Lovely
• K: Fine
• Framework: Meh
• CP: Competitive
• DA: Awesome
• Case: Fantastic
• Analysis: Necessary
• Debate Formality: Meh

Longer Form (The "Oh, there's time and we should probably see what this judge is all about")*

SPEED

I'm comfortable with speed. But, with that said you need to be clear, you ideally do not do weird distracting things (like GASPS of air), you ideally slow down on tags, you ideally slow down when reading plan text/advocacy statement.

I ultimately flow based on what I hear within a round regardless of what you think you may or may not have said. I will "clear" you if you are egregiously unintelligible but that's probably a bad sign if I need to do that. If after I "clear" you and I still find myself struggling significantly with quality of presentation I will literally stop flowing for as long as I need to. With all of that said though, I do have a fairly high tolerance for speed.

There is one more important caveat I think it's necessary to say here: if you are able to spread and your opponents are clearly not able to handle it (e.g. literally cannot flow) I expect you to adapt to the round (i.e. do not steamroll a team because you are able to overwhelm them with quantity of arguments). Speed is a tool in the world of debate and I fully expect you to use it but not at the point where it becomes abusive for the other team and takes away from the educational value of the round for all parties.

LINE-BY-LINE

Please try your best to stick to the structures of the round. Please do your best to frame your arguments in the "They say but we say" structure. Even if things get messy, please do your best to consolidate, group, or summarize arugments together and respond to them in a clear manner. Try and not jump all over the place.

With all of that said, I think this is a skill that all debaters aspire for. Sometimes rounds get messy and all I really do is ask that you do your best to try and line up your arguments as best as you can. The effort is important at the end of the day. I know all judges like a clean line-by-line, and I know that it can get lost in the moment, so... all I ask is that you try your best (cause, let's be honest, is there going to be a judge that ever says "No line-by-line"?)

SIGNPOST

Part and parcel with the idea of line-by-line format is signposts. I think it's incredibly important for teams to make sure they give proper sign posts. Give me a remider of where you are, let me know where I should be flowing, let me know what's going on. Give me a sign that you're about to move to the next card (usually a "AND NEXT" is a good indicator). Signposts help keep you organized, help your opponent stay organized, and helps the judge stay organized. It's an important skill to have... and all I ask is that you try your best.

ROADMAP

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

TAG TEAM

Tag teaming is okay as long as 1) the other team is okay with it and 2) as long as it is not abused. The person being questioned should be responding to a majority of the questions. The partner should be able to help but should absolutely not be dominating the cross-ex. Keep it minimal if you are not "standing up" during cross.

DEFAULT PARADIGM

I like policy rounds. I think debate is a forum for analyzing policy so my default is always to be a policy maker. But, with that said, I've been engaged in this activity enough that I also just see it as a free-form open game space for debaters to discuss whatever issues, in whatever format they want to. If you are making arguments that deviate outside of the traditional policy arguments that's totally cool! I'm down (with caveats I'll explain on each specific argument below) but you need to give me a paradigm to judge in otherwise it probably won't go in your favor (or at least it'll be more of an upward climb).

THEORY

I used to debate theory all the time. I don't think abuse necessarily has to be proven within a round to win this argument. I do think you need to make well articulated, well warranted, well impacted out arguments though. I am more on the side of rejecting the argument and not the team but depending on the flow of the round I can be convinced otherwise. I think a well run theory argument is something a debater can fill a full 8 minutes with, if necessary. That is the level of analysis I love for theory. The quick 10s blips are not particularly compelling.

K

Okay. I really do like Ks. BUT I need to see that the team running it (whether as a negative argument or aff advocacy statement) has a very good understanding of the Kritikal arguments. I think too many K cards are incredibly power tagged and full of unnecessary jargon. Keep things simple, pretend I've never heard of your literature/author, and explain it to me, do not assume I know your literature or author. For example, if you use the term "war machine" repeatedly but never explain what the "war machine" is, I will not do the mental work for you. You need to at a minimum explain it in the beginning of your speech. I think the K debate ultimately is made or broken at the link level -- generic Ks will not really do that much for me. I want to see that you understand the K you are running, and that you can actually find specific, concrete links, into your opponents' arguments.

Second, I think alternatives should actually be viable alternatives. Tell me what the altnerative is and show me how it can work. I think that should come without saying but often I hear alternatives that don't necessarily connect with the thesis of the K or ultimately just don't make sense. If the argument does not make sense then I will very unlikely vote for it.

FRAMEWORK

Framework arguments are kind of boring these days to be honest. Try and keep it interesting by being specific. Show me how the framework interacts with the rest of your arguments. Explain to me how your framework works. Give me analysis, bring it outside of the world of generic cards and let me know how the framework works within the round we are in.

CP

Ideally CPs are non-topical and competitive. I think they are viable options but there needs to be a clear solvency story presented and particularly good impact analysis to balance the world of the plan against the world of the counter plan.

DA

DAs are great. The more specific the better. Generic DAs happen, of course, but the better the link story the better. If you can give me a good DA to the case then you have a significant chance of being able to win the round but it has to be well articulated, it has to be well warranted, it has to be well impacted out against the world of the plan.

CASE

Let's be real, the more specific case arguments you can make the better. Who doesn't like clash and actually engaging in the arguments?

ANALYSIS

Give me analysis. It's not good enough to give me impact calculus in the form of magnitude, timeframe, and significance. I need to understand how you reach the world of the impacts. I need to understand why the impacts are even a possibility. The magnitude, timeframe, and significance formula is fine and all but I need much more than that.

DEBATE FORMALITY

I strongly prefer both teams time themselves, accountability is a good skill to have, but at the request of Tab I will also be timing rounds as necessary. I don't really care where you're speaking from. I'm not particularly formal about the rounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------

* I generally view the role of the judge as being up to the debaters. If you think I should be voting on a movement, tell me why and how the ballot functions. If you think I should be the President making a decision, tell me why and how the ballot functions. I try my best to go into rounds with as few assumptions and biases as possible (recognizing that it's impossible to remove all bias as a human) and you would never see me make a claim that I am the President of a round before it starts (as an example). In short, as much as humanly possible, I try and be a tabula rasa judge so it is on the debaters to make their case for how I should view the round, how I should weigh my decision, and how my ballot should function.

~ A comment on speaker points if I am judging a Wisconsin, non-national circuit tournament. My default speaker point calibration is set to a 28.1 in accordance with national debate trends. Within the state of Wisconsin I have traditionally held an average of 27.5/28 with the idea that points should not and cannot go lower than a 25 (as a matter of custom and as a matter of rule at many tournaments since at least 2002). However, I have recently seen ballots within the state of Wisconsin where points within the low 20s (e.g. "23") seem to be acceptable and endorsed by the state. With that in mind, I am specifically calibrating my average point distribution to a 26 to ensure consistency with state practices.

Current Director of Debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, previously coached at Wake Forest (2 years), University of Central Florida (2 years)

(They/Them Pronouns)

I believe debate is for the debaters. Do your thing, and do it well.

I try to leave as many of my argumentative preferences at the door as possible, but I generally believe a few things:

1. Debate is both a game and a site of activism, and the best conversations about aff and neg ground take both those functions into account.

2. Debaters who tell a story and make strategic decisions about where to apply nuance are more persuasive than those who delve into intricacy but don't frame it as part of a cohesive narrative of the round.

3. Quality > Quantity (of arguments, neg positions, etc)

4. Process > Product

Some things I love

- Mechanistic analysis- how do things happen in your scenario?

- Cards that are highlighted to include full sentences and warrants.

- Innovation.

- Getting strategically aggro in CX.

- Caring about your opponents. Just don't be the worst pls.

Yes, include me on the email chain: CVVitolo at gmail

Debate Experience:

Four years of high school policy debate at Rufus King High School.

I was a K debater.

Paradigm:

Tabs Judge

Preferences:

Email Chain - Please add me : winegarden9897@gmail.com

Speed - I am okay with speed, but be clear. If I can't understand you, it won't be flowed.

Clash - Every round must hav clash otherwise it would not be much of a round.

Cross Ex - Open cross ex is fine, however if one partner takes initiative when it is your cross ex, you will be penalized. Cross ex is an undervalued tool and strategy that not too many teams take advantage of.

K - I love K's, absolutely run them if you feel comfortable running them. If you don't feel comfortable running them, don't think you have to. I'll vote on any K if you prove that the K is better than the Aff.

DA - Love/hate relationship with them. I hate nuclear war DA's, I find them redundant and unrealistic. This isn't saying I won't vote on it, obviously if it beats out the Aff it will get voted on. DA's with realistic impacts is a much better alternative to Nuke War.

T - Using as a time waster is a valid strategy, however it won't get you very far. If you run T, I prefer you run it in depth and actually go for it. If you actually spent time on creating T files it'll show.

CP - Should be mutually exclusive with the Aff, otherwise, it'll be a boring round.