Public Forum since 2014.

I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln for 4 years. I have competed on the National policy circuit during my last two years of highschool on a regular basis. I am currently the assistant coach at Lincoln Southeast high school where I coach Policy, LD, with some PF and Congress. I am most familiar and comfortable with progressive LD and more Traditional Policy; however I will listen to almost anything if it is explained and argued well.

If there is an email chain, add me: dfolkert@nebrwesleyan.edu

LD:

-I prefer contention level debate over standards debate, so any effort to consolidate the standards debate would be much preferred.

-I default to tech over truth

-I encourage creativity with K's, DA's, and CP's to be run within LD, as long as they are run correctly and give me a reason for why that type of position is justified.

Policy:

K aff vs Policy aff: When I was debating, I stuck to traditional policy debate with topical policy aff's over K affs, therefore I prefer to see that type of debate. I prefer to hear a well-warranted and thought out policy aff's over a jargon heavy K aff that provides no justification outside of "the USFG is bad" or the "structure is flawed". I understand and value the importance of an applicable K aff to the topic, but as a general principle I am more persuaded by a policy aff, especially in Nebraska when unfortunately a Policy Aff is rarer then a non-topical K aff.

DA's/ CP: I love to see a great CP and DA combo to an aff over a 1-off K in the 1NC. I feel like a good CP and DA is undervalued in policy debate currently, and would love to see them make a come back. Therefore, from a neg strategy perspective, I will find a team reading an applicable CP over a generic K (such as cap, imperialism, anti-blackness, identity politics, set col, etc.) more persuasive.

K: Again, I am not the biggest fan of 1-off K's in the 1NC, however I do believe K's have a place in a debate when in conjunction with other off-case positions. If you plan on reading a K, either A. read other off case positions such as T or DA's, or B. if you do read a 1-off K, PLEASE do case work. Show me how the K interacts with the aff by indicting the solvency of the aff with the K in the 1NC or turning it, etc. For the K itself, I prefer more pragmatic alts over vague Utopian ults. I am a fan of kicking the Alt and using the K as a linear DA.

T: I love a great T debate, as do most judges! However, key word 'great'. Reading shells in the 1NC and 2AC are fine, but after those speeches I do not want to hear shell extensions, I want to hear real analysis and comparison between your interp and your opponents. I default to competing interps over reasonability.

FW: Against K aff's, I want rather see a good FW debate over a K vs K debate. Again, I would rather see real analysis over shell extensions after the 1NC and 2AC. For me to pull the trigger on FW, I really need a TVA. As I did traditional policy debate over K debating high school, you need to go a little slower on FW and explain arguments more as I am not as familiar with them as I am with more traditional theory and T arguments.

If you have any specific questions about arguments, please ask me before round.

Policy:

I'm okay with any kind of argument from Ks to Theory to DAs, I'm not fussy. Though I do have a history of not finding Topicality arguments particularly compelling unless they're well-ran and the case really is untopical.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

I'll weigh the round however you tell/convince me to, but my default is just standard Utilitarian, and caring about real, in-round abuse over the hypothetical worlds of Aff and Neg.

LD:

I care about the Value and Criterion debate, and I think you should too. I'm going to weigh the round however you convince me to weigh the round, and this can be a huge strategic advantage to whoever wins this point.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

Public Forum:

I'm paying a lot of attention to the flow and to the warrants of the arguments; I'm not a "speaking skills" style judge. (Unless you're rude or something, but that's a different issue). If you're using framework and bring it up in your final speech, make sure you explain why it gets you an advantage or why it's relevant.

debated in varsity pf for 3 years at roosevelt high school in sioux falls, sd with a little bit of experience in circuit debate. in my 3rd-ish year of judging debate. currently a junior at the university of south dakota studying political science. pronouns are she/her/hers.

----------

GENERAL STUFF FOR EVERYONE:

speak up and speak clearly, but don't yell.

anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. will make you lose automatically. no questions asked. debate tournaments must be a safe and inclusive space for everyone involved, and we need to keep it that way.

i will dock speaks for rude behavior (consistent interruptions during speeches/questioning/rfds, belittling opponents or judges, bashing on an opponent for genuinely not understanding something, etc.).

i can generally handle speed but 1) i'll stop flowing if i can't understand you and 2) you need to be mindful of what your opponents may prefer.

PLEASE USE TRIGGER WARNINGS PRIOR TO THE ROUND IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANY SENSITIVE MATERIAL. i don't want anyone to feel vulnerable or threatened by any material that may have an adverse impact on them.

for debate, i'll disclose the winning team and try my best to give an RFD if time allows.

----------

***IMPORTANT - PLEASE DO NOT SKIM OR SKIP!***

i know circuit debaters enjoy using technical jargon, but i strongly dislike it when teams clearly use this sort of language to overwhelm their opponents and practically stomp all over them. this language isn't supposed to be used to take advantage of others, whether it's through confusing them or by making it seem like you know what you're talking about when it’s all just fluff.

that being said, i truly believe the round needs to be accessible to everyone in the room. you shouldn't have to use technical jargon every 5 words in a sentence to win the round. i care more about the quality of your args/ev and your ability to get me to understand and believe what you're saying rather than your ability to say "terminal defense" 20 times in a speech.

i'm not saying you can't use jargon at all, but what i am saying is that you should tone it down and focus more on delivering well-developed and coherent args at a baseline level of understanding. i may not be a true "lay" judge due to my debate experience, but i just don't have the time to learn resolutions anymore, so doing this will help me out a lot when it comes to understanding what both sides are arguing. i also want all debaters to have the chance to comprehend the round as a whole without potentially being thrown off by the constant use of such jargon - everyone should be able to learn in this setting!

if you can adapt to this, i'll be happy. if you have any questions (especially since i may not have been totally clear in this), that's cool too! but if you're the type of person who prefers to have a debate that is a complete mashup of jargon b/c that’s the only way you know how to win, i'm NOT the judge for you. if you're stuck with me anyway and get upset, i won't feel sorry nor will i waste any time arguing with you or your coach(es). this has been a fair warning to everyone. thanks!

----------

PF:

constructive: definitions are fine if absolutely necessary but keep them short. framework is really helpful to have b/c it provides a lens for evaluating the round. i prefer seeing 2-3 clear points of contention presented in a case (“contention 1 is...” or some iteration of that). CLEARLY STATE TAGLINES, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS. a case w/o warrants and impacts is highly unlikely to get my vote.

rebuttal: put some sort of roadmap on top so i know where you're going. signpost clearly. personal preference = 1st rebuttal spends all 4 min on offense against the other case while 2nd rebuttal spends ~2 min on offense and ~2 min responding to 1st rebuttal's attacks. extend and cross-apply points when you can.

summary: again, provide some sort of roadmap. base this speech off of what has been said in the round thus far - no new args please. **clear and distinct voting issues** are really nice to have and make it easier for me to weigh the round on my flow. definitions don't count as voting issues.

final focus: basically just explain to me why you win the round with 2-3 voting issues. no new args or ev can be brought up. i will only weigh warrants and impacts that have been CLEARLY and CLEANLY extended throughout the round up until this speech. if it wasn't extended beforehand (i.e. brought up in rebuttal, dropped in summary, but brought up again in final focus), i won't weigh it.

ev: if you ask your opponents for ev after their speech or after crossfire, that's fine with me. i won't use your prep time while you're getting your ev unless it's taking an absurd amount of time. please refrain from calling for ev as a way to give yourself or your partner extra time to work on a speech. if i notice this, i'll dock your speaks.

NEW - how to effectively win my ballot: give me voting issues in summary/final focus so i know what to focus on for my decision. if you don't clearly state your voting issues (i.e., "our first voting issue is..."), i'm going to have to formulate my RFD around whatever i personally found interesting in the round, and i don't think that's in the best interest of any team. not having clear voting issues is an immense risk of losing my ballot.

other: do NOT try to run anything under the guise of theory, counterplans, kritiks, or anything similar. you will automatically lose if you do. i also stress quality over quantity. just because you read more ev doesn't mean that you win. i'd prefer to hear 1 good card from a reputable scholarly source rather than 10 mediocre cards from at-home blogs.

----------

EXTRA INFO:

if possible, i'll give an extra half speaker point (+0.5) to any debater who uses an effective (not half-assed) analogy in round that not only helps explain an arg better but is able to get a smile or laugh out of me. analogies can be a great way to understand a new or complicated concept, or they can be useful in simply portraying something in a different lens. i also think they help make the round more engaging, and i always appreciate debaters who strive to do that. we all get tired of going to rounds after a long day, especially towards the end of 2-3 day long tournaments. this is just a nice and simple way to help liven things up and bring energy back into the round!

i also know that i didn’t really touch on any other events in this b/c i wanted to keep this short and concise - if i’m your judge and we’re not in a pf round, i will happily answer your questions as best as i can, but please bear with me!

----------

if you have any questions that i didn't answer in this, please feel free to ask me!

I'm a pretty simple judge. Ive done PF for two years, LD for two as well, Congress all 4 years of highschool, even Policy at a tournament. So i know how most forms of debate work.

LD:

I'm pretty traditional so I like to see traditional debates, and believe that morality matters above al else. For example debates with good framework clash and good crystalization win me over. However i myself have used K's in LD and am somewhat used to speed. Flow is very important to me. In my mind impacts are the reason for debate. If someone wins framework but has no link to resolution or impacts I have no reason to vote for them. In the end though i will vote where the round takes me. Whoever gives me a reason to vote for them will recieve that vote.

PF: 

Inferior debate event. I'll Vote off of voters in the round that simple. Flow is very important but if im given a reason to vote against the flow winner (such as framework reasons) i will.

Background: I did four years of PF in SD and qualified for nationals in three of those years. Now, I attend Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MN (Go Gusties!).

How I Judge:

1) I try my best to flow, but it's up to the speakers to weigh arguments and persuade me.

2) Impacts are second to warrants. If there is clash at the warrant level, I will prefer the side that best explains why theirs are more correct.

3) I will be listening in crossfire, not only for arguments and demonstration of topic knowledge but also for rudeness. I believe that being unduly disrespectful can warrant a loss (or at least much lower speaker points).

Preferences:

1) Articulate speech is nice, but I'm more concerned about content. I can handle speed relatively well.

2) I think it is very important that the second team's rebuttal responds to the first team's rebuttal. In summary and final focus, please weigh arguments in some fashion.

3) In SD, theory/counterplans/plans/Ks are not used in PF, so I do not have any experience with them in rounds. Lest you leave me totally confused, I would avoid using them.

I am a college student and a coach, (past two years), I have been part of debate since 2014.

I don't like paraphrase/paragraphed cases, if you have one please make sure you can show the difference between the start of a card and the end of the other. I want a source as well for the cards.

I love direct clash with a passion. Don't just say you won, tell me why and how.

I will weigh things carried through round more then something dropped and then brought back in the FF.

If you have questions please ask me in the round.

Just the basics, I am from Sioux Falls, and am ok with almost all arguments. I don't debate in college, and am unfamiliar with the topic. Any lingo associated with the topic needs to be explained and arguments need to be fully verbalized. If you want to debate topicality, bring it out early and and actually try to debate it. Bringing it up just to forget about it until the last speech won't get a win for me. I'm ok with Kritiks and counter plans, just make sure your opponents know what's happening. When going into the rebuttals, definitely weigh the impacts and tell me exactly why you win. On overall speed, just go slightly slower. If you have to go up an octave when you're spreading, it's too fast.

Overall I'm a pretty decent judge and I want to do my best to sort out the debate in the proper way. Be respective to one another. I'm 100% willing to call out disrespect on the ballot, and if it's bad enough, in round. You're all here for the same reason: love of the sport. Please be kind

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.