I’m a very simple judge, not many presences or bias towards different types of arguments. I am good with understanding theory or T. My decisions are made simply based on what arguments are won on the flow. Technicalities are a big thing for me, if you make drops or fail to properly extend arguments I will not consider them. I have over 5 years of judging experience in Policy, LD. PF.

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.

Background:

I debated for Mukwonago starting in my sophomore year. Novice year was policy, the next two years were PF. Since high school, I've judged on and off for Muk, and am now their assistant coach.

Affiliations:

Mukwonago

Hansen

Policy: I'm going to vote on the best policy, however, if you miss something big, that could very well be a voting issue for me should that thing outweigh your impacts. On the Aff, I like solvency. If you run nothing pertinent to harms, at least get some solvency in. On the Neg, I don't care about on case. Give me disads, counterplans, theory, and kritiks (I particularly enjoy those). I love theory qnd framework as well; easily my favorite argument in all forms of debate. I'm typically a PF judge, and I did PF through most of my debate career, so speed is a no no.

LD: Give me a good framework debate. I'll vote on best framework and who fits that framework best. I will not vote on plans, and I will not vote on counterplans (unless at national style tournament). If you choose to run a plan or CP, that's your prerogative, but understand that I won't vote for it. It may be an interesting way to create an argument that's merely a time suck, and I'm definitely cool with that, but if your opponent has read this at all, they'll know not to touch it because I won't vote on it. The WDCA does not allow these, therefore I will not flow them. Again, I was a PF debater, so no spreading. If I can't hear you, I won't flow.

PF: I won't necessarily weigh a round exclusively on speaking skills and how good of an orator you are, but it will certainly help your case, especially if it's a tough decision.

No matter what, I want to see impact calc. I pity the fool who don't do impact calc. I don't care how cool inflation might be, if you don't give me any dead bodies, I likely won't know what to do. Always weigh the round in the final rebuttal, make it as clear to me as possible that you're winning. Be polite to your opponents always. Being snappy made PF need to sit down during cross, so be nice. If you have something absolutely ridiculous like some kind of a kritikal aff, feel free to use it in front of me. I will absolutely vote on stupid things provided they're executed well (i.e. Death is the end of human suffering, and therefore whichever side kills the most amount of people should win the debate; meme/joke cases, Performance AFFs). The only catch is to go all in with those, or don't do them at all. Go big or go home, there is no in between.

Email is timpeplinski96@gmail.com

(send memes)

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.

Silva, Oscar
Policy Preference Information

I am an English Teacher at Reagan IB High School in Milwaukee. This is my third year as a debate coach. My paradigm defaults to TABs. In a good debate round I expect to see clear speaking and a strong connection of any argument to the debate/policy. Please stay away from topicality as I have found the rounds tend to deviate from the subject at hand.Ks must make sense to policy and not deviate into philosophy land. Also, politeness is a crucial part of debate for me and any impolite words or actions will be reflected in speaking points.

I was a policy debater at Cornell University from 2004-2007. While a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I supported and judged for the debate team at Rufus King International High School in Milwaukee; I have also served as a judge for Ronald Reagan High School for forensics. I am currently the Assistant Director for the Atlanta Urban Debate League (AUDL).

Judge Philosophy

I generally will not do extensive impact analysis for teams who don't do the work in the round. Thus, I will always lean in favor of the team who does a better job of explaining their arguments and how their arguments interact with the opposing teams. I generally don't vote for arguments that are "dropped" on one sheet if they are adequately answered by work elsewhere on the flow, particularly for novice or JV teams. While I generally don't have an ideological investment in the round, I am not persuaded by ontologically violent arguments.

I generally only dock speaker points for debaters who engage in malicious ad hominem or cross reading/clipping.

General - I am open to most arguments and presentation styles (including performance affirmatives and kritiks) but you need to do the work on the flow/in-round.

Topicality - Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Debates should be reasonable and provide equitable ground.

Reading Evidence - If you flag evidence for me, I am willing to evaluate it to determine if the warrants support the argument/tag. However, I not willing to reconstruct arguments for you.

Theory - ASPEC is only a thing if you don't respond to it. I'm fine with conditionality...but if you run a conditional, multi-planked counter-plan...no.

DAs - Clash is good.

K - I'm a fan. If you are an AFF and someone is running a K against you, it is your responsibility to engage the K and rigorously challenge the ALT and its solvency. Similarly, if you are a NEG running a K, then you need to explain how your argument (framework or otherwise) interacts with the 1AC arguments. You need an ALT. The ALT must have solvency.

While I am fairly familiar with (and enjoy) the lit from fem, womanism, and CRT, you need to have a good explanation of the theory and how it materially functions in the round.

K AFFS - While you can be critical of it, you must have a plan text and you must advocate and defend action by the United States Federal Government.