I am a debate coach who has judged all types of debate for nearly 30 years. In recent years, I have focused mainly on public forum and occasionally Lincoln Douglas.

When judging public forum, I adopt the point of view of someone who is conversant in basic terminology and concepts but without any preconceived opinions on the merits of the resolution. The team that is more effective in using evidence and argumentation to convince me that their side should prevail gets the win.

I value clarity and precision in argumentation. While I can flow and comprehend more rapid delivery (I have coached policy), I think that public forum is not well suited to speed. If you are speaking rapidly because there is a lot you really need to cover, I am ok with that. If you are speaking rapidly because you feel it will confuse the other team, I will be annoyed. If you are speaking rapidly because you think it will impress me, it will not.

Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?

The summary is an important speech because it tells me how your side sees the entire round now that constructives and rebuttals are on the flow. The final focus is best spent weighing the round and telling me why your side prevails.

Crossfires are not speeches, so anything from a crossfire that you want on the flow must still be mentioned in a subsequent speech. However, I listen carefully to all crossfires, so I will be aware of whether their contents are being accurately characterized.

In Lincoln-Douglas, I prefer clarity and quality over speed and quantity. I appreciate direct refutation and line by line analysis. My preference is for a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of the resolution. If given a choice, I would like a round that had fewer but better arguments rather than a spread of arguments that all lack decent development.

I do value the traditional role of LD as the more philosophical type of debate, and the value and value criterion play a unique and helpful role in this. However, I am mindful of the fact that not all resolutions lend themselves to this tradition as well as others do, so I am ok with making adjustments accordingly. If I don't feel I've been given clear reasons why I should vote the way you want me to, I will tend to default to a traditional approach, so having the value and value criterion in place still serves a purpose.

Evidence is important in LD to back up your basic claims, but I'd rather have you give me a couple great cards along with excellent analysis then many cards without it.

In your last speech, please make it very clear to me why I should be convinced by what is on the flow to vote for your side.

I look forward to hearing you debate!

My name is Gabe Wollenburg. I am a special education / English teacher at Fort Atkinson High School. I am a former member of the Board of Directors for the Watertown Players Theater and a former director for the Watertown Players Theater Youth Program. I've performed in several shows with the Watertown players and have been part of several readings, performances, and radio plays put on by the players.

1992 I won a scholarship for being a good writer. In 2002 I won a toy school bus for being a good writer. I often win trivia contests. I have a YouTube channel that my students often find and think they've uncovered a secret only to be disappointed at how much time I spend playing videogames and making movies of my dogs.

I love science fiction and fantasy, videogames, cowboy stuff, and goofing off and eating candy. Not in that order.

Please reach out if you have questions or want to talk.

Approach to Scoring / Judging

I rank individual performances on a five-by-five rubric as per the criteria for evaluation for the category I'm judging, that way I never pit performers against each other but instead give each performer an opportunity to achieve the criteria in full.