School Affiliation: West Bend High Schools

Experience: I was a policy debater and a forensic orater for New London High School over 30 years ago. I have been a middle school forensic judge and assistant coach for St. Frances Cabrini School, West Bend, for over 10 years, and a judge and assistant coach for high school forensics for West Bend West High School for another 10 years. In addition, I have been a high school debate judge for West Bend High Schools since 2007. As a high school debate judge, I have judged all forms of debate: novice and varsity policy; public forum; and LD. I have also helped coach LD debate as my daughter was a successful LD debater during the 2008-2009 school year and a CFL National Qualifier in 2010. Other related experience includes spending about 10 years in the career of legal secretary/legal assistant for trial lawyers in both civil and criminal litigation; and coaching the Supreme Court branch of Youth In Government for the Kettle Moraine YMCA for five years.

Rate of Communication:
Speed is fine "if" you enunciate and do not run your words together. Please remember that if you speak too quickly, you will likely sacrifice some of your ability to speak persuasively, which is the most important element of debate, in my opinion. If I am unable to understand or flow what you are saying, you will have a difficult time convincing me that you should win.

Persuasive Communication:
Please see "Rate of Communication" above. In addition, this is a values debate where the affirmative debater has the burden of convincing me that the resolution is true while the negative debater has the burden of convincing me that the resolution is false. This can be accomplished through logic, philosophy and some evidence and by explaining to me through voters what makes you're position more significant than your opponent's position.

Cross-Examination:
Please be polite and use your time wisely. When it's your turn to ask questions, please take advantage of the opportunity to do so, because I can be very impressed with a cross-examiner who asks the right questions. When it's your turn to respond to questions, your ability to do so with composure and confidence will also impress me.

Value/Criteria:
Because LD is a values debate, I expect you to have both a value and criteria and to support them throughout the round. You should show me: (a) how your value will be obtained through your criterion and relate your case to that criterion; (b) how your opponent's criterion won't achieve his/her value; and, possibly, (c) how your case better achieves your opponent's value. In addition, because this is a values debate, I expect you to persuade me that your value and criterion are more likely than your opponent's to "make the world a better place".

Other Helpful Hints:
I appreciate meaningful eye contact directed at both me and your opponent off-and-on throughout the debate, especially when you are trying to make a point crystal clear.
I appreciate a civil and respectful debate.
I do not give oral critiques or disclosures.
If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at jgeenen@sbcglobal.net.

My paradigm is tabs, but I default policymaker. Speed is fine, just slow down on tags. I allow open CX and phone timers. I highly value logic in all arguments. I like impact calc in rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, tell my why what you are saying matters. I will vote on anything as long as it is explained well and you tell me why I should.

CPs: CPs are fine. For me to vote on a CP it needs to have a clear net benefit.   

DAs: DAs are always good, make sure to have a clear link and impact. I prefer specific DAs but generic ones are also okay to run in front of me.

Ks:  I am open to K arguments but am not very well versed in them. If you run a K in front of me or a K aff make sure to explain it well.    

Topicality: I will vote on T as long as it is run correctly. I will also vote on potential abuse as long as you explain why I should. 

Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

Experience: 4 years judging; 1 year policy, 3 years LD/PF

In an LD round, whoever achieves the accepted value and value criterion better will win the round. I’m traditional in that I do like you to debate the framework. Don’t ignore it and flow it through the round.

I value clash. That goes for all divisions. Make sure you’re attacking your opponent’s case equally to defending yours. Give me line-by-line analysis and impact analysis. It’s nice if you tell me your voters, but if you don’t, I’ll fall back to the framework debate and decide who achieves it better. I don't like theory arguments, unless you can make it clear on what the theory is and explain it thoroughly.

In policy I flow all arguments. I look for solvency in the round. If there is no solvency then I'll weigh the round based on impacts. Counterplans are okay, I’m less familiar with Kritiks. If you’re going to run it, make sure you explain it well.

I don’t prefer speed. I can handle it to an extent but be clear and enunciate. If you’re going too fast I’ll tell you. I do allow using your phone as timers.

I will only disclose if I know my decision. If I do not know my decision, I will let the students go while I look through my flow and decide.

I also dont give oral critiques, i will write them on the ballot.

Quick Summary: If I had to label myself as a specific paradigm, I would label myself as a picky tabs judge. I will vote on any argument as long as you analyze why that argument is a round-winner. I like to see good solid debates where there are fewer issues and more depth of argumentation. I like to see 2NR’s and 2AR’s analyze what the key argument in the round is and why they are winning that argument. I don’t like sloppy rebuttals that don’t resolve arguments clearly. In rounds like that, I am forced to intervene which is not what you or I want. I will default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative framework.

DAs: I prefer coherent DAs with solid links to the aff plan. Generic DAs are fine also. DAs are the easiest negative arguments for me to weigh in the round, but I still need some analysis in the 2NR as to why they are a round winner. Don’t just say DA turns case and move on. Tell me why the DA turns case, and it will make it easier for me to vote for you.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive. I’m open to topical CPs, but I need you to explain why it still competes. I believe that the negatives need to prove that their CP is competitive. On the other side, I need affs to really explain their perms and how they prove the CP is not competitive, Don’t just read a ton of random perms in the 2AC and extend them blindly in the 1AR. Give me analysis of why the perms prove the CP doesn’t compete. If you expect to win on a perm in the 2AR, I need to hear at least a decent explanation from the 2AC on it.

T: I am not the best judge for a T debate. Too often, T debates devolve into generic standards and voters being thrown about without any clash or analysis. I find the argument of reasonability very persuasive. Overall, don’t run T just to show off your “cool” definition; run it if you feel there is actual abuse in round. Please weigh your standards and voters especially in later rebuttals.

K: Ks need framework. Preferably in the 1NC, but I will also accept 2NC framework as well. Tell me why the K comes before the case otherwise I default to a policy maker framework. For a team to win on a K in front of me I need a solid analysis of what the framework is, how the K links to the plan, what is the impact/implication of the K, and what is the alt/role of the ballot. I will accept a reject the aff alt, but I really like alts that allow me to embrace something with my ballot. A cohesive, well analyzed alt that explains what a ballot for the K means is much more likely to be a round winner for me. I am not familiar with a lot of K lit, so I’d prefer any Ks run to be well explained. Again, make sure your 2NR explains the K link, implication, alt and framework. For the aff, earlier comments on perms apply here as well.

Theory: I am not the best judge for a theory debate. I would only vote a team down on theory if they were doing something truly abusive in round. Other than that, I usually at worst will reject the argument if the team drops the theory violation on it. On questions of CP status, I usually err neg, but if the affs present a convincing violations I could vote on it. The same goes for “cheater” CPs. If you are going for a theory violation, ultimately, I need good analysis in the final rebuttals as to why it is a major issue in the round.

Performance Debate/K Affs: I need convincing solvency and framework arguments from the aff team. I find arguments about clash and portable skills very convincing, so if you are running a K aff in front of me you need to have good answers. I will vote for performance/K affs, but to win it in front of me you need a clear, convincing answer to why you chose not to talk about the topic. I am not the best judge for this type of debate.

Judging policy debate since 2012

-I am a tabs judge

-I am evaluating the flow and logic of your arguments

-Help me to follow your arguments by providing signposts

-OK with speed if you provide a synopsis of each card

-Prove abuse on topicality

-Explain how your DA links to the plan

-Tell me how your CPs advantages and how it is unique

-If you run framework, please explain how your argument fits into it

-Provide me with impact and reasons to vote at the end of the round.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm:

Experience: During my time as a high school debater I spent three years debating policy and one in public forum debate. As a result my experience debating in the Lincoln-Douglas format is completely non-existent. That said, I have a decent understanding of how an ideal LD round ought to run and I hope to explain that in the following sections.

General Debate Paradigm: As a direct result of my experience as policy debater, I tend to evaluate arguments in a policy centric manner. This does not mean that I refuse to listen to abstract concepts and arguments (as they are integral part of an LD round), but they need to relate back to the world in which we live in order for me to vote based on those arguments. If an argument is comprised entirely of theory and never linked back to the resolution in light of the real world, I will have a very difficult time using that argument when deciding my ballot.

Speed: I include this commentary because it seems as though every debater these days is interested in knowing just how fast they can ramble at me before I simply cannot understand them. As a general rule I have found that speed detracts from the debate and serves to hurt debaters more than it helps them. In my opinion reading ten undistinguishable cards in rapid-fire fashion in an attempt to spread the debate out is about as effective as trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It would serve you well to read one impactful piece of evidence that supports your argument and explain it well than to speed read several cards that all say the same thing.

Kritical Arguments: As I've said, I would rather vote on concrete evidence supporting concrete arguments than purely theory based arguments. In my experience judging, and attempting to understand these arguments in the process, I have found that they rarely accomplish the goal of bringing real world impacts into the round. If you want to win the round in front of me your time would be best used introducing me to impacts that actually link into the topic of the resolution rather than some non-unique, general societal issue that could be linked to any number of resolutions.

Topicality/Debate Theory: These arguments are only helpful to your cause when there is actual abuse of ground or a clear departure from the resolution committed by your opponent. My best advice would be to quickly outline the violation, explain why it harms some aspect of the debate round and then move on. As a policy debater I have pretty good ear for topicality and understand it so I do not need you to spend an entire speech yelling at me about the abuse you have suffered at the hands of your opponent.

Questions/Clarification: Please just ask me if you need a clearer explanation of any of these topics, or others you may be wondering about. This is in no way an exhaustive list of my preferences but it should give you a general idea of how I judge my rounds.

Experience:

I was a policy debater at Waukesha South for 3 years and a PF debater for one. I've been judging for 3 years and am coaching PF and LD for my second year at Waukesha South.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me as long as you slow down for tags, analytics, role of the ballots and plan texts (I like to understand what I'm voting for and why) and make it clear when you're moving onto a different card. I prefer to not have evidence flashed to me so I can judge based on how good a job you do of debating as opposed to how good I am at reading. On that note, if you really want me to have it in front of me you are welcome to flash to me as well.

Kritical Arguments: Having been a policy debater, I am okay with anything progressive in LD. However if you are going to run anything beyond a typical cap k, etc. I prefer to have them clearly explained to me instead of being spread (even if this means you just take a couple seconds after each card to put it in your own words).

Theory: I am also okay with any theory arguments. If you want me to vote on this however I will need very clear and convincing standards and voters.

Framework: Quite honestly, the easiest way to win my ballot is to present me with a clear framework/role of the ballot, explain it, and don't let me forget it. Tell me clearly why you win the round under this and why your opponent doesn't. If your opponent reads framework and you don't explain to me why you fit into it. If you both read competeing frameworks and nobody tells me why to prefer theirs I will revert to a simple cost-benefit analysis mindset.

CPs: I am not a fan of CPs on their own. I do like them run in conjunction with something, such as a K with a CP alt or a CP with a DA.

Speaking Preferences: This all having been said, I am perfectly happy judging an entirely traditional LD debate round as well. Sometimes it's even refreshing to see. I do appreciate debaters who don't spread and make an effort to speak eloquently and fully understand every card they read. I'm not a fan of rude debaters but a little bit of sass will probably make me smile. In crossfire, don't dance around your opponent's questions. If you answer them in a straight forward manner I'll understand your arguments more which is better for you in the long run.

I try to remain as much of a tabs judge as possible, but nobody's perfect.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.