He/Him/His

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, default to offense/defense

Email: nateisdabomb@gmail.com

I would like to be on the email chain

Last substantive edit on my paradigm would be like late 2018.

Experience: I debated for Neenah High School for four years and UMKC for three years. For a year I served as assistant coach at Lee A Tolbert Community Academy. I also did forensics, kudos to you if you can make a group discussion reference. I've judged a lot of middle school rounds, a good number of high school, and the occasional college tournament (including the NDT). Just about all of my competitive and judging experience is in policy / CX debate.

I will flow whatever I hear in a speech, I have no objections to spreading. That being said, if I cannot hear you, I cannot flow you. Slow down on tags/authors or key points if you want to ensure I get them.

I want to hear good substantive clash in a round - that can occur with any argument type. Analysis wins rounds. Make comparative claims.

To me, there are two clear cut strategies to win a round - go further in depth or have a wider breadth. Either of these are fine for me. To win a depth round you need to do lots of analysis. To win a breadth round you need to capitalize on your opponents concessions. Either way you should be explaining why you winning a certain argument is important to the round.

Flows interact more than most teams acknowledge. Cross applying an argument your opponent made on one flow to another is a very viable strategy.

I have no objections to any argument type, whether it be K's, performance, T, theory, etc. That being said, I'm not super familiar with a lot of wild K literature; explain your thesis and you should be fine. I generally find myself leaning towards and inclined to vote for well explained kritiks over policy teams.

Theory should have an interpretation, standards, and voters just like topicality. I enjoy a good topicality or theory debate and I think that these arguments are underutilized in debate today. However, the ways teams are deploying topicality have drifted from the time/space I debated, I find it increasingly difficult to evaluate a round decided on topicality - make it easier for me. Tell a story, don't make me piece together the abuse claim.

Tech > Truth. But truth still has a lot of value, particularly on theory flows.

I aim to be as neutral as I can be going into a round. I think judge intervention is one of the worst things a debater can experience. This informs my philosophy towards me calling for cards at the end of a round. I will not call for cards unless there is a clear disagreement over the substance/text of a piece of evidence. I highly value good evidence, but if your evidence is better it should be articulated in round. I will not do work for you after the round. On the subject of evidence quality, I will give you significantly more weight on a claim/argument if you extend the warrants in a card rather than just saying extending the author or even the tag.

In some rounds judge intervention is inevitable depending on how the debaters performed. Eliminate the risk of judge intervention by doing my work for me. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you and why that's preferable to voting for the other team. Comparative analysis and warrant explanation does wonders here.

I'm serious when I say I'm a tabs judge. If you win that I should evaluate a round a certain way I will do so.

That being said, there are a few rules of debate that I would be very uncomfortable writing off. These include: uninterrupted speech, speech times, and speech order (I don't really care so much as to who on a team is speaking, especially if the identity of the speaker is relevant to the argument). From my perspective right now, these 'rules' are inviolable and necessary for a debate round to even occur, but if you argue against these rules I will evaluate it, I'll just need some real persuasion.

Pizza is my favorite food.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have at any time! Good luck and have fun!

School: Stevens Point Area Senior High (WI)

Experience: I've got three years of high school debate experience, I'm the assistant coach of the SPASH debate team, and this is my second year judging.

I'm a tabs judge but I have a few preferences:

T: I'll always look to competing interpretations, and you should throughly explain your standards/voters. In round abuse will be more persuasive
Kritiks: I'll default to a policy framework if none is presented, so I guess I'm a little biased against Kritiks but if you win the framework flow I'm down. Also I have probably a higher standard for alt solvency.

Impact calc/ framing the round is key. In the end I'll vote on anything, but you need to tell my why I'm signing my ballot.

email me at dgord325@uwsp.edu if you have any questions

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Kahn, Mujeeb  Edit 1… Experience: This is my second year judging for Milwaukee Public School. I have never debated as a high school student.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, and, no, I don't default to a policy ballot if not asked in the beginning of the round.

Topicality: Give me good, logical reasons why I should or should not vote on Topicality. I will vote on topicality, but you must present me with a clear story of the abuse and explain why I should vote against that abuse.

Counterplans: C.P. are fine with me, but must be mutually exclusive with the affirmative plan.

AD/DA: in policy debate, I would like to know both AD and DA. Then, let me decide which side is able to persuade in their direction.

Kritiks: these must be explained to i.e. I need reasons, explanations, and logical evidence from quality sources.

Delivery styles: please be loud and clear. Speed not considered a strategy to me. Use at your own desire.

Framework: framework is fine with me, as long as your able to explain it throughly.

If I was asked to define a good debate round, I will make sure to include clash, analytics and evidence as clearly as possible, such that, the ballot will flow in my favor.

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 16 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2022-23: 7 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

1. I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
2. Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
3. I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
4. If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
5. If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

1. Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
2. Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
3. I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
4. Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
5. Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
6. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

My background: I debated policy for 3 years at Sheboygan South and 3 years at Lakeland College.

I prefer for debaters to do what they are best at. I'd much rather listen to and vote for an argument that I dislike if it's run well than listen to an argument I like run poorly. Therefore, I don't have much to say about specific arguments here. I'd prefer to be asked specific questions before the round. In general, I like to hear thorough line by line and evidence comparison.

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.

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 consider myself a biased tabs judge. I will vote on any arguments, but I tend to need a far more compelling story than dropped blip args before I'll vote on T and theory. Tell me what the in-round abuse is, paint me a picture of the ragged corpse of debate caused by voting for arguments of the kind your opponent is making, regale me with a description of the bitter tears of your mother when she contemplates the fact that conditional counterplans will continue in debate, whatever-just make it strong, believable, and give it impacts that demand immediate action on my part. In general, I'll default to "reject the arg not the team" without a quite good reason to do otherwise.

I'm happy to hear and vote on critiques, but I would ask you to actually do some critiquing when you run them By this I mean that the link flow is the most important flow on the K, and that it's easy to convince me that a well-explained link is applicable across the flow.  It also means that I don't buy that there is such a thing as the "risk of a link" to the K-either you are making well-warranted indictments of the plans underlying assumptions and representations or you are not.  Finally, it means that I don't default to the perm without genuine argumentation-if the neg is putting in genuine link work, the idea that the perm might somehow be a thing to default to strikes me as facially ludicrous.  For affs, this means that a robust challenge to the link and a careful delineation of exactly what your plan entails is an easy A strategy.

In general, I prize rounds involving debaters actually doing some real evidence and argument analysis, and that's probably an easy way to impress me as well. You're better off going for one very strong argument that you can support with detailed analysis than ten little positions and a lot of screaming about nuclear war. I'm rarely impressed by claims that one drop on a 20 point flow is necessarily round-decisive. Do your impact analysis, as well-within the limitations outlined above, I will weigh the round as the debaters tell me to.

I don't often call for ev unless it's questioned in the round or I think it's highly fishy. I am very willing to yell at you about dubious ev, and to drop you if I catch you with flat out lies or out of context cards. I'll make that judgment whether or not the other team brings it up, but I will only drop you on it absent a team challenge if I know for an absolute fact that your ev was cut out of context or has similar strong issues. Still, I read a lot, and may have seen your literature...

As far as speed goes, I'm fine with it, but probably not as good as some about hearing everything you do in a very fast round. If I'm starting to miss arguments or cards (and I try to flow your warrants as well as your cards), or if you start mumbling, I'll ask you to slow down or clear up, and I need you to respect that. If I ask you to do this a couple times, you're better off pretending I said that I insist on conversational speed.

I have judged policy debate since 2004, so I tend to judge public forum by policy debate standards.  I like clash and want all arguments to be supported with evidence.  I believe that framework is important in public forum to help judges reach decisions.

Judge Name: Andrew M Yep

School: Waukesha South High School

Experience

Yep was never a member of debate in high school. He does appreciate judging and debate. He is usually a policy judge but on occasion does get absorbed into the LD and Public Forum realms. Yep is not up to date on Debate lingo. So be sure to explain things and go slow.

Philosophy

Yep has been called Policy, Stocks and Tabs. Thus he does not know exactly where he fits. Persuasion is important and is enhanced by clarity. He will take into consideration all things he understands in the round that are not dropped. Yep does not like it when a team kicks arguments unless there exists a contradiction a speaker cannot explain away. Personally Yep does not like speed and spread. He prefers quality over quantity. If a speaker feels it is necessary to do a line by line analysis give it the time and do not speed over it.

Topicality - Yep is not against topicality. Words are important in the world. But Yep needs definitions, standards and voters. Also provide analogies and examples of what plans work under the definition and what does not. This helps Yep figure out if there exist a Topicality violation.

Counterplans - Counterplans need to be clear. If the counterplan is not mutually exclusive then a net benefit must be clearly achieved.

Kritiks - Yep is not a philosophy major. Yep does not vote on these often. A speaker may use one but at the risk of Yep being very confused. Be sure to explain the link thoroughly and provide an alternative.

Disadvantages - If Yep misses the link he will be very confused. Clarity is a must. When a DA is introduced Yep firmly believes that minimally it should be linked and impacts discussed in the 1NC.

Structure of the Round and Speaking

Yep likes signposts and likes very clear and slow tags. Yep prefers cross examinations to be closed so that he can judge your organization and understanding of arguments which will reflect into speaker points. If a speaker turns into a parrot that will reflect poorly in speaker points.

Rebuttals

Speakers should summarize the round pull through their arguments. Weigh the round through magnitude, timeframe and probability. Yep likes probability he is a statistics teacher. Obviously certain percentages cannot always be given but we can use word like “certain” or “uncertain”. He enjoys it when speakers question the validity of studies and experiments. Analogies and examples are not only welcomed but encouraged.

Timing & Technology

Yep’s timer is final. He is a little slow in starting it. He tries to let a team know when he is starting it. He will on occasion tell you how much you have left. In regards to technology the prep time will only end when the portable storage device is physically removed from the port of entry and is one its way to the other team or if the the teams opt for an email chain then prep time will end when the opposing team confirms they received the message