For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

Policy:

When judging policy rounds, I look for answers to the following 3 questions:

1: What is the problem in the status quo?

2: What Harm is the problem in the status quo causing?

3: How is the Affirmative plan solving for this problem/Harm?

With those 3 questions in mind, I consider myself a Policy-Maker judge with a conservative bias.  I love to hear topicality arguments, counterplans, and DAs. I do not like kritiks and typically will not vote on them. Topicality, if argued, must be run in the 1NC.

Cross-Ex:

I prefer closed cross examinations as I believe that cross examinations allow the debaters to show the judge how well they understand what they are debating through the questions they ask and the answers they give.

Speaker Points:

I prefer a clear presentation. No Speed and Spread.

Typically the debater with the clearest arguments, most comprehensive rebuttal, and best cross examination performance receive my #1 rank.

Lincoln Douglas:

Having a background in Policy debate, I prefer debates that are contention based, not philosophical.

When judging Lincoln Douglas rounds, I look for the answer to the following questions:

1: If I had to do what the resolution asks in the Real World right now, which way would I go, based on what I just heard?

2: Whose value criterion was clearest? Which debater convinced me that he or she best supports his or her value? If it’s equal, which proved to have the “higher” -- more important -- value?

3: Whose arguments were more convincing?

Speaker Points:

I prefer a clear presentation. No Speed and Spread.

Typically the debater with the clearest arguments, most comprehensive crystallization, clearest value criterion, and best cross examination performance receive my #1 rank.

I have been a student debater primarily in Policy debate at Bradley Tech High School, with a few debates under my belt in Public Forum Debate as well. I have judged Policy as well as Public Forum, and primarily Lincoln Douglas Debate for the last 5 years on the Wisconsin Circuit and once at the Glenbrooks.

SPEED:Not a fan of speed, as debaters tend to get very inarticulate when trying to spread other debaters.

FRAMEWORK:I put a lot of weight on framework debates. This is a big voter for me.

KRTIKS: Not much of a fan mostly due to the fact that most debaters can't fully explain one in the short amount of time allotted. Run at your own peril or if you can explain and convince me fully to pick up up on one.

COUNTER PLANS:I usually like to hear counterplans, as long as they have structure and can be explained well to convince me to vote on it.

THEORY: I can listen to it, but most of the time, it won't be enough to guarantee a win, UNLESS you are very convincing in it, AND that is all you have for a particular argument.

DISADVANTAGES: See impacts.

IMPACTS: VERY IMPORTANT! WEIGH...THE ...ROUND!!! Give me voters and extend your impacts please. In the end, that is what will convince me to give you the win.

DELIVERY AND POLITENESS: Have a clear delivery, with lots of clash, and be very polite. I did not like rudeness when I was debating; won't tolerate it now when I am judging. Not a fan of flex prep, where cross ex continues during another person's prep time.

After the round, I can give oral critiques, BUT I DO NOT DISCLOSE! I feel the debaters will follow the comments more if they are not distracted by the win or loss disclosure.

Any other questions, just ask me before the round.

I look forward to judging some awesome debates.

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 am entering the debate room as a blank slate, your job is to convince me that your argument is right.  Please no spread when debaters speak too fast I tend to tune out, same with volume and tome, please be respectful to your oppontent, please have your cards ready incase your oppoentent asks to see it, so we don't waste time looking for it. 

Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be nice and be precise. Be wise and don't compromise.

Having judged debate since the fall of 2015, here's the breakdown of my philosophy/advice for debaters:

1. Be nice: Better said, be cordial and respectful of both the judge and your opponent. If you are in any way condescending to either, you can guarantee that I will take notice. Debating is at its core communicating. You must establish a rapport with all key figures to be successful. If you immediately recognize that you have an edge over your opponent due to one's level of experience or lack of preparation, conduct yourself in the same manner as you would with a more formidable opponent. This includes cross-X, which should not be used to mock, intimidate or villify but rather to gather information to inform your own argument and case against your opponent's while strategically offering insight into your plan of attack. If you are unaccustomed to looking at your opponent during the course of your debate, I challenge you to do so. It takes more courage.

2. Be precise: I have judged debaters who spread and those who don't and have found that both styles can be equally as successful. What distinguishes one's success is an ability to choose words carefully and efficiently use time. Simply spewing a lot of information for the sake of getting it out there, only to drop most of it in subsequent rebuttals, is a waste of words and time. I value precision highly, as I value time. If it seems that you are just reading your case without fully understanding its meaning, you will lose credibility. Do not use words that you cannot pronounce.

3. Be wise: I appreciate creativity in a debater's argumentation, including Ks and PICs, but I can also tell when a debater is relying on a creative line of argumentation simply to avoid the threat of an opposing argument. Exude confidence and adjust to your circumstances. Listen deliberately to your opponent to find holes in his logic and/or in her evidence. I value timely wit and flexibility.

4. Don't compromise. Once you have begun to debate, see your argument through. Defend it, and not simply by restating what you have already said (see #2). Speak purposefully and confidently. During the cross-X do not allow your opponent to have an open floor to have more time to make her case (I see this often! See #3); be in charge and precise in your questioning (see #2).

The most important things to know about debating in front of me are that I tend to prefer traditional argumentation. However, there is no position I will not vote on if executed well. I judge solely based on the cases presented. Make sure you establish how the round should be evaluated (clearly determine value, contentions, framework, etc.) and use your time during cross-ex effectively.

Experience:

I participated in speech (informative category) during high school. This season is my first year judging debate. Since September 2016, I have been judging novice and varsity PF and LD. Additionally, my career path has largely incorporated public speaking and critical thinking so I have a strong capability to critique and evaluate speakers.

Rate of Communication:

I am okay with speed as long as articulation is maintained. My perception of your performance can be affected negatively if your rate hinders my ability to understand what you are saying.

Persuasive Communication:

I greatly value the ability to persuade. Confidence in information and familiarity with the topic are prerequisites to this. As a speaker, you must show concern for the fundamental questions using research and logic. Credibility is also achieved through physical appearance by presenting yourself polished and professional. Intonation is important in emphasizing strong points and I appreciate meaningful eye contact directed at both me and your opponent off-and-on throughout the debate.

Cross-Examination:

Please be civil and respectful in speech and tone. Please make concise responses and use your ability the paraphrase to use your time wisely. I value speakers who ask strategic questions and remain composed.

Value/Criteria:

As LD is a values debate, a value and supported criteria are essential. Establish your value and determine how you will achieve your value through the criterion. I like comparative phrases that distinguish how the opponent’s criterion does not achieve the value and how yours better achieves the opponent’s value, if possible. I expect you to emphasize why your case is the best solution.

If you have questions, please contact me at erika.schneider@marquette.edu.

I'm trained in Policy, but primarily judge LD and PF (along with Forensics and Student Congress). As such, my background is more overtly political, but I tend towards things more philosophical or abstract.

I will do impact calculus (and by all means, try to convince me of what should be weighed and how), but have some respect for what you're arguing: if you're arguing about a precise number of human lives extinguished, it's time for a break from this activity.

A lot of my philosophy of judging is about having as fair a debate as possible when a debate cannot be fair. As such, a good number of kritiks are not very compelling unless they are very well-linked to your opponent's arguments. The Resolution exists to help narrow debate to guide students to research in a certain direction, so many kritiks rely simply on catching your opponent unawares, and I fail to see the educational value in this. If you're running it in a round I'm judging, it's a total Hail Mary (which is not to say that I would never vote on a kritik - I'd be over the moon to see a linked performative kritik! Convince me!)

Counterplans in LD: You don't present a plan (that comes from Policy, where they draft a plan), so you can't have a counterplan. If you're "running a counterplan" in LD, you're making a contention.
Speed: No, thank you. First of all, if you spread, I might not get everything on my flow - and if it's not on my flow, I'm not going to judge it. Second of all, you should be able to prioritize your arguments to fit within speech times. Having said that, if you speak at a faster clip, and especially if you enunciate, you're good. Oh, and third, spreading will tank your speaker points.

I've been studying intersectionality of oppression and do my best to be mindful of identity issues in debate. If you have a concerns about external factors affecting judging, I'm open to hearing what you have to say, minding the fact that the average tournament doesn't have a lot of time to spare. Also, in a broader sense, suffering is optional: I've had students have breakdowns in my round, and... these things happen, unfortunately. But this is not a reflection of your abilities as a debater or speaker. Will sometimes a round be lost? Sure - this is not the end of the world. I'm here to give you feedback on how well you are at making arguments, and while I can be ornery about specifics, I'm honestly cheering on everyone to bring their best. It's more fun for everyone and it's what makes you a better debater. I have drawn frowny faces on my flow on dropped arguments.

I'm fortunate to have only had to say this rarely, but if I tell you, "you need to speak to your coach," it's not as ominous as it seems. Basically, if I want you to speak to your coach about your ballot, it means that there's something fundamental about debate that you're misunderstanding based on what I observed, and the ballot will be very clear about what that is so that you can get some targeted coaching as soon as possible in order to help improve your performance.

Give me a good debate. Try your best.

Background

I began coaching debate as the assistant coach at West Bend East in the fall of 1971. I think it was 1973 when I became the head coach. I’ve been a member of NFL/NSDA since 1964 and am currently a 5 diamond coach. I’m a retired Speech and English teacher with 50 years of debate and forensic coaching experience.

Policy

Long ago, I believed in case specific details. I still do. Call me old-fashioned. I won’t mind. I’ll consider it a compliment. I believe that the affirmative has a responsibility to present a prima facie case and a plan to correct the problem. I believe their case is strengthened when it’s supported by a number of experts, not just one lone voice used over and over.

I believe that the negative should attack those stock issues and plan. I have been known to vote on T. I expect the violation to be based on reasonable definitions -- probably not words like: "the", "a", "an" -- get the idea? The change needs to be real, not an "it might" situation.

I do not believe that counterplans (I'll listen to them) should be topical or that every plan will lead to a nuclear war. If that were the case, we’d all be dead, not debating. I like the real world. DA's need to link to the case.

I believe that debaters ought to be polite to each other – well, at least civil. I don’t think debaters should be asking or answering questions during another’s cross exam period. If your partner needs help, work with him/her during the week.

I don’t believe that debaters need to talk so fast that no one could possible understand their words. Where’s the logic in that? Can you win arguments when people have no clue what you’ve said? I simply declare that those indistinguishable words were never spoken in the round and no mention of them will be found on my flow.

I like well sign-posted attacks and responses. I like clarity. I like analysis, not just card reading. It’s not my job to make your argument for you. And if your evidence could actually match the tag you read, that would be a tremendous asset to your side. I don’t like jargon. My world is a no “perm” world. Persuade me with your logical, substantiated attacks. The number of issues is not particularly relevant but the impact is.



Lincoln-Douglas

I’m a purist. I expect a clearly explained value from each debater. I expect clash on which value should have the higher priority or who better achieves the agreed upon value. I expect you to answer the question posed by the resolution rather than the question you want to answer.

Although this is theory debate, a few concrete examples will help me believe your position. BTW: theory means just that. L-D should be about whether we should/shouldn't do something. It's about deciding which idea is better than another. It is not policy debate. It does not require a plan to fix a problem and, with that, it does not entertain a counter-plan ( and neither do I.).

I have the same pet peeves here as in all other debate formats. Too fast means I didn’t catch the idea. That’s bad. Too little analysis means I can’t expect your opponent to respond to it. That’s equally bad –actually, that’s worse. I will listen to anything you want to include in your attack. I will not, however, make the attacks for you. Be specific.

At the end, I expect both debaters to flat out tell me why you win the round. What are the voters?

If my comments sound cruel or unrealistic to you, please strike me in whatever way you can because you don’t want me as your judge. Oh, and, no I won’t hold up the next round with oral comments.

If I haven’t answered your questions/concerns, feel free to ask. I’ll share.

PF

Pretty much the same as what I've already covered. I want clearly explained ideas with evidence. Just because you say it does not automatically make it true. I'm not listening for a specific plan (or counter-plan) to solve the resolution. I want to know which side gives me the better outcome.

Congress

When I listen to Congress speeches, I expected clear, logical, well-documented reasons for supporting your position. I don't want to hear you rambling on the topic in general. I want you to respond to the ideas of other speakers. I want new ideas (not repetition) add to the debate. I do like a "smile's worth" of humor added to the debate.

I'm not impressed by pre-written speeches. In fact, those will likely lower your ranking with me. As a former speech teacher, I do appreciate a well-delivered speech but I prefer good solid thought over smooth delivery. A few stumbles are not critical.

If you're answering a question, get to the point. Don't answer the question you want to answer, but rather, answer the one you were asked.

In the chamber, I expect decorum. I watch to see your participation with questioning and to see that you are paying attention to the proceedings.

Anton Shircel

Coaching:
Assistant coach/judge for Sheboygan South from 2004-2006
Assistant/Head coach Neenah from 2006-2010
Assistant coach Waukesha South 2012-2014
Head Coach Sheboygan North High School 2014-Present

High School Experience:
Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years (1998-2002)
Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS
Participated in Forensics, Mock Trial, and Student Congress

Public Forum Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: This format is geared towards having citizen judges. Speed should reflect a quick-paced conversation. Clarity and enunciation is paramount in understanding the arguments. I shouldn't need to follow a transcript of your speech to understand what you are saying.

Framework: This is a key point that needs to be made in the first speeches. The pro/con need to show the framework of how they achieve a win for the round. This needs to be clearly stated and then proven in their contentions. A lack of framework shows a lack of focus. If for some reason that there isn't a framework, my default one would be a basic Utilitarian framework.

Off Case Arguments: I am not a fan of kritiks, theory, and other off-case arguments in a public forum round. Look, I am not going to write it off on my own. The opposition still needs to address it. However, it will not take much beyond a basic abuse argument for me to cross it off the flow.

Role of Summary & Final Focus: At this point, the arguments have been stated. Each side should be weighing the different positions and showing why they are ahead on the flow. The summary is also the point where there should be strategic choices made on collapsing or kicking contentions/arguments.

Policy Debate Philosophy: Policy Maker
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments. As far as open-cross examination, I am not against it. However, both sides must be okay with the situation.

Topicality: I am not the biggest fan of topicality. There must be a clear violation of the affirmative for me to consider voting. I like a structured t debate with clear standards, etc. and competing definitions. I see topicality as an a priori issue that I vote on first in the round.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a great negative strategy. There needs to be a clear Counterplan Text and some sort of competitiveness. I am not the biggest fan of topical counterplans. Perms need to be explicit as well so that there is no vagueness.

Kritiks: I am a fan of kritks, but the negs need to make sure they understand them. It looks bad if the neg stumbles/contradicts themselves in the cross-examinations. Also, I need a clear alternative/world view from the negatives if they hope to have me vote on it at the end of the round. Again, perms need to be clear and explicit and show that competitiveness does not exist.

Theory: Theory is not the end-all of the rounds for me. I tend to look at rounds as real-world. Some theory would be needed at times such as perms/topicality but should only be used as support to an argument and not as an argument itself.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments.

Whole Res Vs. Plan Specific Cases: I prefer whole resolution debates. If I wanted a plan-specific case, I would be judging policy.

Counterplans: See my thoughts on plan-specific cases above. The same holds true for negative positions that go plan-specific.

Theory: It should be an essential aspect of your position. However, I do not enjoy when it falls into the theory of debate itself.

Be nice and be precise. Be wise and don't compromise.

1. Be nice: Better said, be cordial and respectful of both the judge and your opponent. If you are in any way condescending to either, you can guarantee that I will take notice. Debating is at its core communicating. You must establish a rapport with all key figures to be successful. If you immediately recognize that you have an edge over your opponent due to one's level of experience or lack of preparation, conduct yourself in the same manner as you would with a more formidable opponent. This includes cross-X, which should not be used to mock, intimidate or villify but rather to gather information to inform your own argument and case against your opponent's while strategically offering insight into your plan of attack. If you are unaccustomed to looking at your opponent during the course of your debate, I challenge you to do so. It takes more courage.

2. Be precise: I have judged debaters who spread and those who don't and have found that both styles can be equally as successful. What distinguishes one's success is an ability to choose words carefully and efficiently use time. Simply spewing a lot of information for the sake of getting it out there, only to drop most of it in subsequent rebuttals, is a waste of words and time. I value precision highly, as I value time. If it seems that you are just reading your case without fully understanding its meaning, you will lose credibility. Do not use words that you cannot pronounce.

3. Be wise: I appreciate creativity in a debater's argumentation, including Ks and PICs, but I can also tell when a debater is relying on a creative line of argumentation simply to avoid the threat of an opposing argument. Exude confidence and adjust to your circumstances. Listen deliberately to your opponent to find holes in his logic and/or in her evidence. I value timely wit and flexibility.

4. Don't compromise. Once you have begun to debate, see your argument through. Defend it, and not simply by restating what you have already said (see #2). Speak purposefully and confidently. During the cross-X do not allow your opponent to have an open floor to have more time to make her case (I see this often! See #3); be in charge and precise in your questioning (see #2).