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.

Nelson, Toni

Clean to the Wisconsin circuit, participated in Drama Debate and Forensics in Anchorage Alaska for all four years of high school (we meld it all together instead of separate seasons). Four years of extemporaneous speaking on domestic, foreign and comm topics. In drama categories I participated in Humurous Interp, Readers theater (1st Place @ state) solo and duo acting. Public Forum debate was introduced my Freshman year and I jumped at the opportunity for the fast pace style debate. I ended up moving the next year to policy debate for a more rigorous and challenging circuit, took 3rd at state with a freshman partner.

Because of my forensics background I place heavy consideration on speaking, clarity, flow, and enunciation, speak as fast as you want, I can keep up, but if you start to slur your words you will lose speaker points and of course lose some of your argument in the process. It bothers me greatly to see teams read fast only to have time in the constructive left. If this is the case, continue to use your time by bullet pointing your case/arguments you just sped read.

Public Forum

Maintain a respectable decorum at all times; not a voting issue but will affect speaker points. Do your best to be clear and courteous to opposing team and team mates, particularly during the grand crossfire.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

Arguments made with supporting evidence are great, but logical arguments will also be heavily considered. Watch for logical fallacies, if the other team doesn't call them out I can't vote against them. No new arguments in the closing speeches, use your 2 minutes to wrap up your key points. Points made during crossfire will be considered for voting, so make sure you are as clear as possible.

I retain the right to ask for any evidence that is presented during the debate from either team. Failure to produce evidence that is used to support an argument will result in a loss for the round. For example, if you quote an article or make a claim from a publication and cite the publication be sure you have it with you. Yes, this really did happen once, a team read a tag line from the "New York Times" to support their argument but was unable to produce the article they had just read for the judge. Do not do this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Debate:

Cross Examination with me is always closed, if you want open CX go to PF.

Teams: Use the CX time to listen to the questions and answers and be prepared to fill any knowledge gaps/questions left by your partner in your next speech. I do not vote on issues raised in CX, so if something important was pulled out during CX you must point it out/ create an argument based on it, in your next speech for me to take it into consideration.

Good lines of questioning will be given high speaker points. i.e. a cross examination filled with “can you read your card again” or “clarify that line” sort of basic info questions that were already given to you in the constructive will not gain you high speaker points.

I am open to logical arguments, but know that evidence always holds the upper hand. I am strong proponent of the spaghetti method, throw everything you can and see what sticks, keep that aff team busy trying to answer all your arguments. Arguments or attacks not answered or touched by the opposing team need to be pointed out (extended) in rebuttal speeches or I consider it left on the table by both teams. There is a lot of information being thrown at you in what ends up being a relatively short amount of time, I need to know both teams are paying attention to the whole debate.

The Affirmative team Reserves the Right to Legislative FIAT, or “Let it be done”, for the most part teams do this out of common curtesy but no one use this line of language in their plans anymore. DO not make your arguments about whether congress or the president will pass this plan, for the sake of the debate we debate on the merits of the policy or plan not whether congress can pull its head out of the sand. If these arguments are made, make sure you point them out during the debate.

Topicality is a stock issue, but you need to show why a plan does not fit the resolution. An argument of "our definition of "substantial” is better than yours because it’s from blacks law dictionary" is probably not going to get you a win on topicality but feel free to try anyway (spaghetti). If your arguments boil down to DA or Harms, a topicality attack left unanswered on top of the Dis Ads may put you on the winning side. Some topicality attacks are confused with what really is an attack on inherency, so a perfectly valid inherency attack (which is a stock issue) may not be voted on because your team is arguing it as topicality which shows a lack of knowledge of the debate process, I see this more in novice.

Counterplans are fine, a negative team may also decide to kick their counterplan in favor of stronger arguments this is fine and does not constitute an automatic win for the affirmative.

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com