Docstoc

Baseman_ Erik

Document Sample
Baseman_ Erik Powered By Docstoc
					Wisconsin State Debate Tournament
              2010

       Judge Philosophies
                          WSDT 2010 Judge Philosophies
Lincoln-Douglas Judges
  Agrawal, Krishna ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
  Barbuch, Sam ...............................................................................................................................................................................5
  Bierbach, Jared ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6
  Brown, Pamela .............................................................................................................................................................................7
  DeBow, Royce ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
  Jacobi, Jim .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
  Johnson, Jeremy .......................................................................................................................................................................10
  Kaounas, Sophia ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
  Kapsukiewicz, Emily.................................................................................................................................................................. 12
  Lepien, Kimm ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14
  Matson, Shawn .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
  Maylander, Tim ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
  Neal, John .................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
  Neal, Kay .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
  Platt, Justice............................................................................................................................................................................... 19
  Sajdak, Ken ............................................................................................................................................................................... 20
  Trilling, Noah ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21
  Walls, Dedra ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22
  Yang, Eugene ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23

Varsity Four Person Policy Debate Judges
 Billerbeck, Franklin .................................................................................................................................................................. 25
 Bourassa, Samuel ......................................................................................................................................................................27
 Buck, Sera ................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
 Cook, Melissa ............................................................................................................................................................................ 29
 Dennis, Josh ............................................................................................................................................................................. 30
 Devine, Brian ............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
 Hansen, Dan ............................................................................................................................................................................. 32
 Jackson, Neil ............................................................................................................................................................................. 33
 Knetzger, John .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
 Martner, Casey .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35
 Reynolds, Parker ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36
 Russell, Charles .........................................................................................................................................................................37
 Shanker, Kripa .......................................................................................................................................................................... 38
 Surprenant, Linda .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
 Willkomm, Geoff ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Varsity Two Person Policy Debate Judges
 Barnett, Katherine .................................................................................................................................................................... 43
 Charles, Noah ........................................................................................................................................................................... 44
 Filak, Vince ............................................................................................................................................................................... 46
 Glenzer, Sam ............................................................................................................................................................................. 48
 Hass, Melissa ............................................................................................................................................................................ 49
 Henning, Dave .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50
 Jackson, Tyler ........................................................................................................................................................................... 52
 King, Stephanie ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53
 Mehlos, Corey ........................................................................................................................................................................... 54
 Mills, Laurel ...............................................................................................................................................................................55
 Palmbach, Andrew ................................................................................................................................................................... 56
 Platt, Justice...............................................................................................................................................................................57
 Sailer, Phil ................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
 Schultz, Ben .............................................................................................................................................................................. 59
 Schultz, Tyler ............................................................................................................................................................................ 60
 Sisco, Sara .................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
 Trilling, Noah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 62
 Watson, David .......................................................................................................................................................................... 64
 Wunderlich, Carly..................................................................................................................................................................... 65


                                                                                                2
Lincoln-Douglas Judges




          3
Agrawal, Krishna
Background: I did LD Debate for 4 years at Catalina Foothills High School in Tucson, AZ. I debated for two years on the
local circuit and two years on the national circuit. I am a third year undergrad at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
majoring in International Studies.

Speed: You can go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. Please be very clear in enunciating card names and taglines
especially.

Value/Criterion/Arguments:
Having competed and judged on the national circuit, I am open to hearing all sorts of arguments. If theory or any pre-
standards argument is run, it should be clear WHY the argument is prima facie or a priori, and why I should consider
voting on it before I look to the substantive, standards-level debate and aff/neg constructives. The Aff and Neg can set
whatever burdens they want for themselves or for their opponent. I don't really care about the "value" debate. Impacting
back to standards is very important when making extensions (unless you don't have a criterion and only set up a burden
for youself to meet, which is fine). When extending arguments, be clear in stating the argument, impact, link to standard,
etc. Tell me how your arguments function in terms of the round. I also like when debaters weigh arguments.
So, make the decision easy for me by doing all of the above.




                                                             4
Barbuch, Sam
Affiliation: Middleton (Assistant Coach)

Experience: I competed in Public Forum and Student Congress debate in High School. I started coaching debate earlier
this year. I am relatively new to LD and have only judged it a few times. I am, however, easily able to follow value based
arguments.

Delivery: Talking a bit fast is fine as long as you can still articulate well. Policy speeds, however, are too fast for me. I will
never render a decision based on delivery, however, if I cannot understand you, it will be difficult for me to flow your
arguments.

Organization: Speak in an organized manner and sign post. Tell me what contention you're talking about. I'll be able to
flow you better, this can only help your chances of winning.

Burdens: Obviously the Affirmative must prove that the resolution is a good idea. The Negative should strive to prove that
the resolution is a bad idea, but could still win by disproving all of the Affirmative's contentions.

Decorum: There is no reason to be rude or excessively abrasive in rounds. This behavior is irritating to me and could
indirectly impact my decision.

Value and Value Criterion: As a value based debate, proving that your value and criterion are superior to your opponent's
is large part of winning the debate.

Overall Philosophy: Tabula Rasa. The round will dictate which arguments are most important. Convince me that your side
is superior for a majority of the important arguments and I'll give you the win.




                                                                 5
Bierbach, Jared
I have no experience in debate outside of judging this year. I am a senior at UWM majoring in Political Science and
International Relations.

I will vote on whatever is presented to me--a values debate, a definitions debate, and impact contest--whatever. What you
need to know is that I am a new judge and that I don't know debate jargon, I am not the best at flowing, and I can't handle
excessive pace. Speak slowly and clearly, please.

Evidence is really important to me. I like to hear author and source. Tag your cards. It's helpful.

Value and Value Criterion debate is essential. That's what LD is all about. But make sure you link your V and VC, and
make sure to present a coherent case.

Please give me voters--I like to be addressed directly and succinctly. Recap the round and tell me why your arguments
should outweigh your opponent's.




                                                              6
Brown, Pamela
Pamela Brown
Affiliation - Bradley Tech High School
Background - 2 years of high school policy debate, 3 years of speech competition. 2nd year judging LD debate and 3rd
judging debate overall.

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. An important note would be the careful consideration that should be
taking during the cross-examination procedure. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of case evidence;
however, should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic
deduction in positional speaker points.

The most important voter issue is the establishment of the best value and criterion for the round. Although standard case
observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to provide strong voting
ground within the round. Should either the affirming or negating opponent fail to extend their value and criterion
throughout their rebuttal, the remaining value and criterion will be highly considered within the voter issue. Should the
affirming negating competitor prove that the opponent‘s value doesn‘t reach their criterion, the more clearly attainable
value and criterion will be highly considered within the voter issue. Should both affirming and negating competitors share
the same value or criterion, the establishment of the best value and criterion for the round will be a partial voting issue.

The second most important voter issue is the implementation of the topic, and or resolution within the affirming case
observations, value, and criterion. Should the negating competitor prove that their opponent‘s observations, value, or
criterion does not uphold the topic or resolution, the most compelling negating evidence would be highly considered
within the voter issue. Should the affirming competitor prove that the negating opponent fails to address the affirmative
case, compelling affirming evidence would be highly considered within the voter issue.

The third and final important voter issue is weighing of case impacts within the round. Should either the affirming or
negating competitor prove their case impacts outweigh and are the most substantial in comparison to their opponent‘s
arguments, case impacts will be a highly considerable voter issue.




                                                             7
DeBow, Royce
POLICY BACKGROUND/PHILOSOPHY: Policy debater for West Bend East (WBE) 1978-1982. Started/coached team
(mid 1980's) at U.S. high school on NATO base in Iceland while stationed there, for students of U.S. military members
stationed there with their families. Did not debate in college. Assistant coach at WBE in mid 1990's for policy and LD.
Have judged state (policy and LD) and national (LD) finals. 20 plus years experience. Currently not coaching. POLICY
PREFERENCES: Not a fan of speed or speed/spread. Prefer quality over quantity. Prefer C-X where each debater
asks/answers their own questions, respectively. Tag team not encouraged or rewarded. Stock issues can win a round for
either side. Definitions and referencing resolution preferred over esoteric, generic arguments. Fundamental clash must
exist. Not a big fan of counterplans, although they can win and are sometimes useful, depending on what Affirmative is
presenting. A counter-plan must be non-topical. Very limited critiques are okay. Theory or conditional arguments of any
kind need not be offered. Again, STOCK issues are best bet.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS BACKGROUND/PHILOSOPHY: Policy debater for West Bend East (WBE) 1978-1982.
Started/coached team (mid 1980's) at U.S. high school on NATO base in Iceland while stationed there, for students of U.S.
military members stationed there with their families. Did not debate in college. Assistant coach at WBE in mid 1990's for
policy and LD. Have judged state (policy and LD) and national finals (LD). 20 plus years experience. Currently not
coaching. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS PREFERENCES: Speed has no place in LD. It's all about persuasion and each debater's
ability to demonstrate a superior approach to their side of the resolution. On balance, debater who best achieves value or
value(s) through criteria fulfillment wins. NO counterplans in LD.




                                                            8
Jacobi, Jim
Jim Jacobi has judged Lincoln Douglas Debate since 2004-2005, and Public Forum and Congressional Debate since
2002-2003, including rounds at NFL and NCFL Nationals, as well as The Glenbrooks. He has also helped coach at Rufus
King High School (2002-2008), and since 2009-2010, has helped coach forensics at Ripon High School. His professional
background is in logistics and retail sales management.


Judging Preferences:
Moderate to slower rate of delivery, but more important, quality of arguments over quantity.
Be clear and communicative. This is what debate trains you for. If you sell your ideas well, I might buy them!
Value and value criterion framework upon which contentions are weighed.
Persuasive arguments that examine the big picture with examples used to illustrate
Clash: please refute your opponents while upholding your own arguments




                                                             9
Johnson, Jeremy

Jeremy Johnson, Ripon College
School constraints: Ripon High School

I am a judge from Ripon College, three years out of competition. I competed in Congressional, Public Forum and Lincoln-
Douglas Debate on the Colorado high school circuit, and also dabbled in policy. I have competed in extemp for the past six
years, and have done a few tournaments in parliamentary debate as a college competitor.

In general, my debate philosophy is:

1. Good communication--meaning not too fast of a pace, good delivery, and polite manners.
2. Clash! Talk about your opponents' arguments and pin them down.
3. Holistic, cost-benefit debate--you do not lose in my book just because you lose or drop a small, insignificant argument.
Feel free to tell me why the benefits outweigh the costs and why your case supports that.
4. Deep analysis of a few issues. I don't want cases with 100 points; I just want deep cases that get to the heart of the issue.
Don't run your high-speed, 100-point cases on me and expect me to be happy with it.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I prefer moderate speed, especially in Lincoln-Douglas, since it is an ethically-driven, not policy-driven debate. In general,
I appreciate good communication, which frankly, I don‘t believe comes at overly speedy rates. I like persuasive
communication, but do not tolerate being told what to do (i.e. ―you‘re going to vote for our team‖). I expect civil, polite
debate.

I prefer a debate focused on a few deep, clashing issues. The ―spaghetti method‖ does not go over with me too well
(meaning, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks). Don‘t run 100 points in your case and tell me you win because
your opponents missed point 63. I prefer conciseness and consistency.

I believe both sides have the burden of addressing the resolution. Both sides have the burden of supplying a value,
weighing the value, and evaluating the other side‘s perspective. Each side must make a case for why the resolution should
be upheld or negated.

A debater must win the value and criteria debates to win the round. The debater needs to tell me why their position would
lead to a better society and a better world on a whole. I want you to ethically address what values can help shape a better,
more vibrant society.

LD is all about values and weighing values for a better society. If you can prove to me your side does that the best, through
ethical debate, you will win.




                                                               10
Kaounas, Sophia

Judge Paradigm:

I have no constraints on Wisconsin competitors.

In high school I was active in L.D for 3 years as well as policy and public forum for one. I am currently an Extemper as well
as parliamentary debater for Ripon College.

Rate of communication in L.D ought to be a moderate speaking style that doesn't have me rushing to flow the arguments.

Communication is key in order for any argument to be on either debater's side. If I cannot understand your arguments due
to speed, the burden is on you to fix it.

I request that the information that you are presenting is precise and able to get the point across. On that matter, if
debaters are going to attempt to persuade me, please do not advocate something that doesn't make sense to the common
person. Sides can be persuasive all you want, but if the pieces don't fit debaters won't be getting my vote.

Arguments made in C-X will be flowed if relevance is made clear. Of course, each debater must act in a civilized and
respectful manner.

I am a firm believer that L.D debate is based on both sides having an equal burden.

The connection between case and the Value/Criterion debate is beyond essential. The basic technique to uphold the value
and criterion is always taken into consideration when examining contention relevance.

Another big importance is the use of idealistic situations. I do believe that it would be in either sides best interest to utilize
examples that do involve the real world. Although philosophers base quite a bit of their arguments around idealistic
worlds and situations, it is important to show me how it can apply in the real world today.




                                                                11
Kapsukiewicz, Emily
I debated for in high school for four years in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I judged last year on the WI circuit for the most part,
and for LD on the nat'l circuit.

Speed: As long as you are clear, I would probably classify myself as being able to listen/comprehend/flow at a 7.5 or 8 on a
ten point scale. (ten being the fastest). I will make it very clear to you if I am not keeping up with you, and I expect the
debaters to be responsive to those very clear signals.

Expectations: I expect and enjoy a clean debate. I am not offended terribly easily- so I wouldn't worry. I'm not offended by
strong language. Again, it will be very obvious if I feel that any of the debaters are being offensive. However, I am pretty
comfortable with an informal debate setting, i dont care if you sit or stand, make eye contact, or leave the room *quietly*
to go to the bathroom, get a drink of water whatever.

Policy- General:
Do the work for me and be clear: I don't want to be stuck at the end of the round trying to figure out what you meant when
you rattled off the two second blippy arg "CP is not functionally competitive"- that doesnt actually tell me anything.
Instead of relying on debate jargon to convey your meaning and arg to me, explain what the arg is. I have seen a lot of
debaters get up and say that the card has no warrant and move on to the next argument. That's not good enough. You need
to explain what isn't warranted in the card, and how that impacts the round. If you take the time to explain the arguments
you will save me a lot of trouble at the end of the round and increase your chances of picking up my ballot.

give a good story: When you are giving me any sort of scenario, ADV, or DA's whatever the scenario might be- I want you
to tell the story, meaning, that it has to have some sort of link or logical progression. An impact- not only does the arg have
an impact, you need to tell me how it impacts the whole round: how does the argument operate on other flows. You need
to be telling me why the arg is true, why it is important, and how it impacts the round. Weigh impacts- i dont care how you
do it, but you need to find some sort of weighing mechanism that tells me how i choose between nuclear war and
dehumanization. If you dont tell me, i get to to choose and you have a 50% chance of my choice not being in your favor- so
dont let me choose.

Style: I prefer good arguments- it sounds redundant, but I hear a lot less of them than i would like. I understand that
generic blippy responses are part of the debate culture- but try to stay away from them. I would much rather have you
argue 5 really good, persuasive, logical, specific, and tailored args than 10 mediocre ones or 20 blippy ones. I like clash,
please don't try to avoid it because you dont think that you can win.

Squirrely args: dont use them.

new args- dont like them. I really hate hearing a brand new counterplan in the rebuttal- and yes it's happened, and im
telling you not to do it. If there is a situation in which a team is spewing out new args, please dont just whine and tell me
that it they're new- i know that. Tell me if/why i should vote on it.

Prep: As long as there aren't any tournament specifications, I typically allow 8 minutes. Unless for some odd reasons both
teams agree to do five minutes of prep, i usually just say eight is good.

LD:
Value/ Value Criterion Debate: I like to hear a very clear standards debate. I strongly believe that most v/vc args should be
resolved going into the final rebuttals. Please don't feel that you *have* to win *your* vc. Just make sure you articulate
what standard you are using, and then tell me a clear story of how your args impact the standard, and why it wins you the
round. I'm not particular about having a "formal" value-criterion structure- just some kind of standard for me to weigh the
impx on. Articulate some sort of standard, or impacts story- and I will probably buy it. I am not big into values unless one
of the debaters articulates why the value is central to resolving burdens/creating a brightline between aff/neg ground.

Likes/Dislikes:
I don't like people saying "This is how it's done in LD.... you can't read fast...." Really, as long as you provide a warrant for
doing XYZ (be it evidence or logic) I will probably buy it. Note: New args in the 2ar/nr are not appropriate, and that's
really all that needs to be said.

I like theory- as long as it is explained clearly and impacted.




                                                                  12
Definitional debate: Please only spark one of these beasts when necessary. If you aren't going to use it to exclude or
include args, then don't bother at all. Provide warrants for your interpretation- pretty standard expectations here.

Non-traditional args: See above; I will listen. I am very open to most ideas, I flow well, and I am fairly intelligent.

Other:
Extend warrants, not tag lines. I'm not saying that to be funny- I've seen it happen: "Please extend my tag from Contention
2"...
Impact: Seriously, just do it!
Weigh impacts: I can't stand when debaters don't weigh args. Typically, I feel that weighing of impx should really begin in
the nc/1ar just because sometimes the weighing structure is complex enough that it can appear as if it is a new arg in the
2ar- so begin weighing as soon as you can. Honestly, don't leave unresolved impacts on the flow. My decisions tend to
make debaters unhappy when I don't vote based on (whatever scenario with X impact). Turns out, I probably voted on
(whatever scenario with Y impact). Do the work for me.

Anything else-just ask.




                                                               13
Lepien, Kimm

Experience:
I have been judging LD for the past two years.

Speed:
As I am primarily a Varsity Policy judge (and former debator), I can follow speed. However, I do not feel that excessive
speed is necessary in LD debate. If you choose to use speed, then you must be clear and articulate well. If I cannot
understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Value, Value Criterion:
You must have both, and must support them throughout the round. You must also convince me that your value and
criterion are the better ones in the round and that I should vote for them.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the
same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the
outcome of the debate.

Cross-ex:
Cross-ex is for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to berate them and try to prove your
superiority. I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:
I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and and why I should vote
on them.

Oral critiques and disclosure:
I do not give oral critiques, nor do I disclose the outcome of the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at klepien@hotmail.com.




                                                              14
Matson, Shawn

I am a graduate of Brookfield East HS and the Director of Debate and Forensics at Whitefish Bay HS. I used to coach
debate and forensics at Rufus King HS. I've judged/coached PF and LD for four years at all levels. I competed from 2003-
2007, mostly in Public Forum, Oratory, and Student Congress. I have a strong speech background.

Definitions: I used to be more stringent on the definitions debate. I now tend to prefer normative definitions in the
interest of leaving more time for actual debate. Of course, if you are making a linguistic arg, then by all means hammer on
the definitions. The easiest way to lose my ballot is by contradicting yourself, especially when the definition contradicts the
contentions. They must be compatible. I love dichotomies and semantics.

Evidence: Important, but useless without analysis. A winning formula: 1 part evidence, 2 parts analysis. Don't just read
cards. If the warrants have no impact, I will disregard.

Value/Value Criterion: I bet your value is good, but you've gotta weigh it. Moreover, I need to see how you achieve it. The
criterion is extremely important.

Arguments: I'm open to most types of argumentation. Value Structure Kritiks, Theories, Topicality, etc. are all things I'm
willing to vote for, if argued smartly. This doesn't mean you should name-drop debate jargon. Walk me through your
arguments, please--I want it fleshed out with analysis. Be very careful on analogies and anecdotes, make sure it applies.

Voters: Give me an explicit reason to vote for your case. Crystallize and weigh the round. All else equal (no drops or
contradictions), I want to vote for the case that is most effacing because as a judge, I want my name next to the case that
does the most good. Ergo, address me directly and persuade me.

Speed: Brevity is the soul of wit. Quality > quantity. I'm a 6 out of 10 on speed. I don't vote on speed as a principle despite
the fact that I find excessive speed annoying, but understand that if I can't understand you it's as if you hadn't said
anything. I will let you know if you are speeding. Speak loudly and clearly.

Speaker Points: I use speaker points as a way to grade your decorum, speed, and clarity. If you do something dishonest, or
you're not quite a considerate opponent, I will dock the points considerably. On the flip side, I do give out a 30 every now
and again.

TL;DR: You might call me an activist tabula rasa judge. Whomever makes the argument that is: (a) the most logical, and
(b) proven to be more favorable will win. Dont' get caught up in internal links--focus on real dichotomies and philosophy.
Most LD rounds I judge are lost on definitional dichotomies (for example, maximization of life vs. respect for life) or
contradictions. And I don't like having to vote on that stuff.

I do not enjoy line-by-line flowing and don't believe a debate should be relegated to columns and arrows on a legal pad.
Thus, I will begrudgingly flow the round. Your voters, signposts, and persuasive analysis should be enough to win my vote.
When in doubt, crystallize. I sometimes make my decision based on a disastrous CX. My hearing isn't terrific, so slow
down and speak up! Signpost religiously and keep up with your internal outline.

I am obsessed with semantics.

Be civil, turn your phones off, and be a little gutsy.

Questions, concerns, laurels, and laments to shawn.matson@gmail.com




                                                               15
Maylander, Tim

My paradigm is pretty simple. I'm a Tabs-Policymaker judge. What this means is it's your guys job to do the debating,
weigh the round and impact the heck out of everything. I can handle people talking at an accelerated rate, but garbled
mumbo-jumbo will get you nowhere fast with me. I flow on paper - sorry. I'll let you know if you're going too fast (read:
unclear), but if you don't see me writing your argument down chances are a) you aren't making one, or b) I warned you to
slow down and you didn't listen. And if it's not on my flow.... then you didn't really say it, did you?

At the end of the round I expect you to condense and impact. Usually, the team that impacts the best wins my rounds.
Don't think that because I also judge LD means I'm not a "good" judge. I'll give comprehensive oral critiques after the
round - but don't argue with me or I'll just leave. Critiques are to help you do better, not so the losing team can take it out
on me because they lost the round. I weigh pretty much all arguments equally. Don't think that I'll vote for you just for
running a kritik, you still have to do the work on the flow. If you're running some wanky theory crap, ask me about it first
(but me calling it wanky theory crap probably answered your question, didn't it?) And no, T is not wanky theory crap, and
yes, if your case is horribly untopical and the other team argues it effectively, you will lose.

Offense is always better than defense. In round abuse is always better than potential abuse. Quality is always better than
quantity, and peperoni and sausage are the best toppings for a pizza.

Essentially, have fun, weigh your arguments, play nice, and I'm sure we'll all get along just fine.

Note - pretty much the same stuff applies for LD (except that whole 'policymaker' thing). I've been around WI for a long
time, if you guys don't know where I stand on something, just ask.




                                                              16
Neal, John

Number of rounds judged lifetime: Well over 1000 rounds I am sure---_30+ years of judging_
Number of rounds judged this season: 12_
List other schools which you may have current/past affiliations with and should not judge?
None
Your experience with academic debate (check those that apply).

_x_. Policy debater in college _
_x Frequently judge policy debate

Judged at least 25 L.D. rounds this season and have judged several rounds on this specific topic.

My experience in debate was as a policy debate in both high school and college. I have judged Wisconsin debate for 30
plus years. I have been involved as a policy debater..both high school and college and did one year of coaching at Ripon
College many years ago. With regard to L.D., I have judged L.D. debate for over 15 years and enjoy it now far more than
policy debate. I see debate as a communication activity which is what L.D. is all about--- requiring debaters to speak
clearly and at a rate that is comprehensible. An L.D. debater should always clearly articulate what the voting issues are and
why he/she should win the round.

Because of my policy background, I do believe that the affirmative does have the burden to prove his/her case in order for
me to support the resolution. Since all debate is/should be based on the legal model that one is innocent until proven
guilty....I believe that the affirmative team does have an obligation to prove the resolution to be true before I can cast a
vote in favor of the resolution. Therefore, the negative only is required to prove the resolution false. The negative side also
has a huge time advantage with the structure of L.D. debate. However, if affirmative carries the value in the round, which
is hopefully supported most effectively through his/her case, affirmative is likely to win…..so the value debate is very
important. The current topic in my opinion favors the affirmative based on the literature and what leaders in the health
field would advocate. Therefore, the natural time advantage the negative side has is more than offset by the advocacy
literature/evidence available to the affirmative side.

I think it is difficult for Affirmative to win the round if he/she doesn‘t carry the value….assuming both sides are arguing
different values. So, yes….I believe that winning the value/criteria debate is essential for a debater to win (especially aff.)
However, if both sides are defending the same value….then I vote for the individual that best meets that value. It would be
difficult to ―sell‖ me on the most desirable world/worldview independent of the value being defended. It could only be
sufficient to win the round if the worldview encompasses the better value or the agreed upon value by the debaters.
However, with that said....every round is different. Sometimes the value is not a big issue in the round for whatever
reason. I don't impose my views in the debate and judge on what the L.D. debaters have decided should be the
issues....which doesn't always involve value advocacy.

Ideal Debate: Debate is an argumentation and communication activity and there is CLASH between the two teams.
Make sure you chrystalize the debate into voting issues during your rebuttals--especially why the value and value criterion
you are defending should prevail. Makes my job much easier that way. Good Luck to all the participants.




                                                              17
Neal, Kay

Kay Neal, Chair of the Department of Communication Univ. of Wisconsin Oshkosh

I have been involved as a policy debater..both high school and college and as a college coach and debate judge for over 40
years. (Yes….we had electricity and indoor plumbing back then). My primary experience as a debate and coach was in
policy….not L.D. debate. (It did not exist when I was competing as a student). However, I have judged L.D. debate for over
15 years and actually have co-authored an argumentation and debate text book for the college level. The chapters I
contributed to the book had to do with value debate ( how to write an affirmative/neg case involving values and value
criterion). I see debate as a communication activity which really embraces the philosophy of L.D. which requires debaters
to speak clearly and at a rate that is comprehensible. It does not have to be oratorical (although that is nice to hear every
now and then), but should be clear what the voting issues are and why you should win the round.

Because of my policy background, I do believe that the affirmative does have the burden to prove his/her case in order for
me to support the resolution. Therefore, the negative only is required to prove the resolution false. However, if affirmative
carries the value in the round, which is hopefully supported most effectively through his/her case, affirmative is likely to
win…..so the value debate is very important.

Every L.D. debate should have a core value, a value hierarchy (how values "stack up" against each other) and a value
criterion (the standard by which we judge the core value in the overall value hierarchy). The value and value criterion are
different animals. Many L.D. debaters treat the value criterion as just a different value. It should not be this. For example,
societal welfare (core value) can only be obtained by promoting public safety (value criterion). Therefore, the direction
that promotes more public safety is necessary for gaining societal welfare.

I think it is difficult for Affirmative to win the round if he/she doesn‘t carry the value….assuming both sides are arguing
different values. So, yes….I believe that winning the value/criteria debate is essential for a debater to win (especially aff.)
However, if both sides are defending the same value….then I vote for the individual that best meets that value. It would be
difficult to ―sell‖ me on the most desirable world/worldview independent of the value being defended. It could only be
sufficient to win the round if the worldview encompasses the better value or the agreed upon value by the debaters.
However, with that said....every round is different. Sometimes the value is not a big issue in the round for whatever
reason....So don't hold me to this statement literally. Debating is fluid.....and as a judge, I try to do my best to judge fairly
and not be held to an inflexible, rigid standard of what a L.D. debate round must always be. Sometimes, it is not
that......especially given the number of policy resolutions we have seen in the last couple of seasons.

Ideal Debate: Debate is an argumentation and communication activity and there is CLASH between the two teams. I do
not like lots of silly, trivial arguments…but do like issues that are well developed and discussed fully. Good arguments, well
supported, clearly presented should prevail. I like clear, case specific analysis that is delivered in a comprehensible
manner and rate. Make sure you weigh the issues and focus on the voting issues in the final rebuttals--especially why the
value you are defending should prevail-- so that I am not left with that task myself.




                                                               18
Platt, Justice
Currently head coach at Nicolet High School (2009-present) Assistant coach NHS 2008, frequent policy judge since 2007,
LD judge prior, parli debater in college (very bad). My undergrad degree is in philosophy, so I am conversant with the
mainstream of Western philosophy.

That said, I expect an LD round to include strong and careful analysis of your standards and criteria. I tend to prefer
arguments made and carried through by the debaters to card references, especially if the card's argument is somewhat
difficult or subtle. You get points for nuance and careful distinctions. Since I think formal judging philosophies can be less
helpful than a knowledge of the actual biases of the person you're reading about, I'll say that I believe that David Hume
was probably the greatest thinker we've had, and tend to have strong sympathy for the Anglo-American analytic tradition
and the American pragmatist tradition in philosophy. I'm also extremely fond of classical philosophy. This doesn't mean I
won't listen to arguments that come from other traditions, nor that I am un-acquainted with them. I'll listen to the
arguments you're making, but I think it's important to tell you where I'm coming from.

In a similar vein, on the November/December topic, I am also conversant with most of the policy arguments about this
topic, and have worked in the criminal justice system as well as in AODA treatment. You probably shouldn't pref me if
your arguments about this topic rely on caricatures of the reality of our situation in this country. That said, I have
considerable personal sympathy for both sides in this particular debate, and probably have fewer fixed opinions than
many without my experience in the field.

In terms of technical issues, I've judged a lot of policy recently, and so I have no real problem with speed or with theory
arguments. Standard caveats apply, however-if I tell you to clear it up, clear it up, and impact your theory args-I'm not the
judge for you if you want to claim that one drop on a 20-point theory block is an automatic win, without any other work. I
tend to prefer rounds that end up focussing on a smaller number of key issues, and will be unimpressed with claims that
failure to address core issues can be overcome with a panoply f technical wins on other flows.




                                                              19
Sajdak, Ken

Basic information:
Head debate coach at Waukesha South HS for 37 years (39 in Wisconsin, 1 in College). Policy debater in college, and in
Wisconsin HS debate. That means 42 years in debate.(And here I am writing this the week before I retire. Oh well, maybe
I'll judge some next year.)

General Debate Positions

As an old guy, I believe debate - in any format - is primarily an oral communication activity. As such, my general approach
as a judge is as a critic of argument. That means that I want to hear good clash between the two sides (advocating for their
side). I need the help of debaters to present their arguments (data, claim, backing, rebuttal) in a clear fashion. If I can't
hear it, I have trouble flowing it. If I don't flow it, and no one talks about it, I assume it wasn't important. But even if I flow
it, if it is important, it should be pushed (that's advocacy). A good debate tells me a "reasonable" story that advocates for or
against the resolution and reflects the give and take that took place in the round.

I usually say that I am Tabla Rasa -- as I literally let the debaters tell me how to vote, but the preceding paragraph
overrides.

Bottom line: I am guided by the arguments of the debaters, even if they are not the strongest arguments.

I reward debaters with comprehensive strategic positions. This means the individual arguments should fit into an
integrated position. I will vote on case or plan. The earlier you indicate what you‘re going for, the happier I will be. Impact
evaluation makes my decision less arbitrary, so I feel better if there‘s lots of impact analysis.

From here, I'll address some format type issues, but recommend you read it all.... It's not that long.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Considerations

If you have read this far, you know that advocacy and persuasion are critical to me.

That said, while I believe that selling your position is way more important than values/criteria debate, you as a debate
have choices. When we are done, I want to know why you win.

Cross examination (in LD or Policy) is a critical block of time. If you can get your opponent into a dilemma and can use it,
that is often the most persuasive of techniques.

In a good debate, I will be presented with two competing views of the world and will be asked to choose one. One of the
competing views of the world I will accept is that the resolution is false. (On the current topic, that's not likely to happen.)

Again, I what to know why you think you won the debate.




                                                                20
Trilling, Noah
Background
I did policy debate from 03-07 (Oceans-Service) at Sheboygan North High School in Sheboygan, WI. In 07-08 (Africa) I
was an assistant coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI under head coach Bill Batterman. In 08-09
(Energy) I was the head coach of Brookfield Central High School in Brookfield, WI. In 09-10 (Poverty) I plan to judge
frequently at National and Regional Tournaments. I am a junior at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee studying
Sociology and Political Science.

Overview
Paradigm-Tabula Rasa: I‘m an open-minded critic but, like everyone, I have certain argument preferences. Don‘t let
my personal argument preferences alter your strategy, however. You should run arguments based on your pretournament
preparations and the arguments you hear in the debate. The arguments that you feel most comfortable with and believe
are appropriate for the round will be your best arguments. I‘d rather hear arguments you‘re familiar with than have you
alter your strategy and not know the evidence. I will evaluate all arguments presented in the debate and attempt to
minimize judge intervention (to things like mischaracterizing evidence, cheating, etc).

Delivery-Fast: This will be my seventh year involved in Varsity Policy Debate so speed isn‘t an issue. Expanding on your
best arguments, avoiding blippy tag-line extensions, and slowing down on theory and topicality will help you win debates
by improving the clarity of your warrants and the clarity of your speech. Out carding and out tech-ing a team is not the
surest way to victory. Narrowing the focus of the debate and sitting on arguments of significance does a great deal to
improve the clarity of your message.

Evidence Quality: Researching high quality evidence, explaining warrants effectively, and executing case-specific
strategies IS the surest way to win in front of me. At the end of the debate I almost always call for evidence. If you are
overstating the quality of your evidence or mischaracterizing its claims I might simply disregard it entirely. You are
absolutely responsible for providing truthful evidence from qualified sources that accurately represents the nature and
scope of your claims.

Lincoln-Douglas
I debated my senior year in Lincoln Douglas Debate, competing with some success in state but with very little national
circuit experience. Most of my experience in the debate community comes from my experience participating in and
coaching varsity policy debate. I included my varsity paradigm below to give you further insight into my judging
philosophy and feelings on the activity. The overview to my policy debate philosophy and the speaker point scale would be
worth noting.

Given my policy background, most of my knowledge about debate theory comes from my experience in policy debate. I'm
familiar with theory arguments like topicality and conditionality but most other high tech theory arguments are going to
require explanation. You may need to slow down on these arguments and explain them more thoroughly. Although i am
not terribly familiar with theory in lincoln douglas, I will be very receptive to any of these types of arguments. Both sides
can establish burdens as they see fit. Debates about how to evaluate the real world implications of the resolution vs
evaluating the resolution as a truth claim are invited and will help me resolve the meta-issues of the debate.

The nature of your arguments is much less important to me than the quality of your arguments. My view on evidence
quality in policy debate are applied equally, if not moreso in lincoln douglas debate. I will be keeping a rigorous flow of the
round, so be sure to address arguments line by line. In the final rebuttals emphasize crystallization and on impacting to
your standard. Weighing your impacts and your standard is the surest way to win my ballot.




                                                              21
Walls, Dedra


Affiliation: Whitefish Bay High School.

I have judged High School Forensics for 5 years and am new to Debate this year. My background is in Fine Arts and I
spent 20 years developing interpretive programs and educational materials for the Milwaukee Art Museum.

IMPORTANT: The most important thing to note is that I am new to Debate.

My Values: In LD I look for clearly stated positions that are supported by well researched facts.

Arguments: I am open to any form of argument as long as it is developed in a logical manner. I am a tabula rasa judge in
that I let the debaters make their points, while I leave my knowledge outside the room.

Value/Criterion: I am not very interested in the values debate. It is more important that there is evidence to support the
selection of a particular value. I want the speaker to know their warrants and present it in a manner that makes me believe
their commitment to what they are stating.

Speaking style: Clear concise language that is direct, to the point and void of jargon is much appreciated. I don't know a
lot about Theories and other argument styles, so make sure to run structured cases with clear outlines and signposting.

Important Elements: I look to the first questioning period as the moment for each side to demonstrate their
understanding of the entire issue and their opportunity to suggest flaws in the other side's position.

Etiquette: I expect civility between competitors and dislike sarcasm and superior attitudes. Speedy delivery often seems a
mean to showcase the speaker and not often obscures the content of what is being said.

Voters: I'm not so interested in seeing an appeal to the judge on how I should vote, but more of a crystallization of the
round.




                                                             22
Yang, Eugene

Background:
Debated for Appleton East (Policy - V4) 1991-1996
Education: MBA and JD
Work: Consulting with start up companies

I bring a more policy focused approach to the round, looking to be persuaded which the best option is. Making the round
entertaining for me (in a good way, not a horror story way) is a great way to increase speaker points-- being engaging to
your audience is an important communication skill.
I place value on both quality arguments and persuasive communication. A stronger argument (logical and supported by
reasoning or evidence) will always be valued more, but persuasion and strong speaking/advocacy skills will be the tie
breaker if the arguments seem roughly equal and the debaters have not given analysis as to why I should prefer one over
the other. I understand jargon and technical/policy terminology but prefer it is kept to a minimum. If you are going faster
be sure that you are VERY clear so that your arguments as you intend them end up on my flow, otherwise I may be voting
off of only what I heard and wrote down and not what you hoped I would hear.




                                                            23
Varsity Four Person Policy Debate Judges




                   24
Billerbeck, Franklin
School constraints: Janesville Parker

Experience: Policy and CEDA debate in college back in the 1970s. I have been a hired judge for the past 4 years. My
background includes training in classical rhetoric, argumentation, and law.

Philosophy: policy debate within an educational context ought to be designed to lead the participants through debate for
the purposes of increasing critical thinking skills (including deductive and inductive argument, identifying and rebutting
fallacies, and analyzing evidence), developing the ability to present and to refute an argument (always adjusting as
appropriate for the given audience[s]), developing research skills, developing the ability to think on one‘s feet and under
pressure, and presenting the material in a way that effectively (persuasively) communicates to the audience. Debate can
help provide a superb background for such areas as law, business, and politics. The real ―trophy‖ in debate is not a piece of
hardware but the skills that transfer to the ―real‖ world.

Paradigm: I would probably be classified as a stock issues judge with a heavy dose of ―real word policy.‖ My thinking
goes like this: is the affirmative topical? Most affirmative cases I have heard are topical, and I tend to be a little bit broad
in the topicality area. For me, topicality, ultimately, is ―winner takes all.‖ If the aff. is clearly not topical, the neg. wins. If
topicality is really open to interpretation, I will interpret and, if the aff. has a reasonable case, I will grant topicality so we
can move onto the debate. My blunt advice is this: if a team really believes topicality is an issue, present the case (I really
do want to hear it) and move on. Yes, topicality can hinge on definition of terms. If it does, show me why your
interpretation is better than the one provided by the other side. It can‘t hurt to raise the issue; however, don‘t put all your
proverbial ―eggs‖ in the topicality basket. Aff. needs to show me we have a significant harm that is inherent (structurally or
attitudinally) to the status quo. Should aff. fail here, I vote neg. If aff. wins harm and inherency, I go to plan and solvency.
If aff. wins these, aff. wins the round. Negatives may focus on any of the above areas and win the round. This is a delicate
balance between the advantage the aff. has is presenting a prepared case combined with the negative of needing to win all
4 issues and the neg. advantage of needing to win one issue but having the huge issue of facing an unknown affirmative
position.

Counterplans are fine by me; however, giving a counterplan shifts the debate to plan and solvency. A counterplan may,
in my view, be topical or nontopical. However, I really prefer nontopical counterplans because the status quo needs a good
defender and there are always two or more sides to an argument. Since this is a competition, I consider a counterplan to
be always an either/or proposition, and I will judge it that way (even if the plan and counterplan could be combined).
When it comes to plans and counterplans, my ―real world policy‖ side comes into play. Allowing for fiat and hence the
absence of the political reality, show me how this plan or counterplan is really going to work.

Kritics/critiques: I‘m fine with these. However, I like to see tangibility and specifics applicable in the ―real‖ world. I
weigh impacts based on significance and likelihood of harm and numbers likely impacted and likely degree of impact.
Hence, death outweighs feeling disenfranchised.

ADs and DAs: I love them. However, I prefer specifics over generics.

Clash: in debate, clash is a good thing.

Theory: If a team believes something the other team is doing is wrong, argue the point and show me why it is wrong and
why it is important. However, this is a policy debate and not a debate about policy debate. Hence, I prefer a focus on
policy. However, if theory will help me decider, run the case.

Issues/concerns/things you might want to know.

Speed/Rate: if an average person could not understand what you are saying then YOU NEED TO SLOW DOWN OR
STOP TALKING!!! We are training here for the ―real‖ world. Don‘t get into bad habits that will be difficult to break. In my
college argumentation and debate class, one of my classmates was a nationally ranked NDT debater. He almost failed the
course!! Why? The instructor could not understand him because he spoke too fast and he could not slow down! I hope he
broke his habit because he was going to law school and, frankly, if a judge and/or jury can‘t understand and the attorney
can‘t slow down, that will a very poor attorney in a court room. I reduce speaker points for speed if, in my judgment, an
average person could not understand it. I find 1AC especially guilty of this. After informing teams of this, I have had 1AC
completely ignore my admonition, speak in what to an average person would be unintelligible babble, and literally gasp
noisily for air between sound bursts (evidently the concept of audience adaptation was not understood or the speaker
lacked the skill to adapt). This is a communication activity with a series of speeches. Hence, the rules of public speaking
apply. I like previews/roadmaps, internal summaries and signposting. Be consistent in signposting—don‘t say ―third‖
without having stated a ―first‖ and a ―second.‖ Speak so as to persuade me. Put passion into your presentation. Examples

                                                                25
are terrific. I also like humor and incorporating appropriate quotations (though provide translation if from a foreign
language). I do time roadmaps. Clarity and precision are important.

Politeness: the other side is not the enemy, merely the competition. Lack of politeness is not acceptable now and not
acceptable latter in life (e.g., business, social settings, etc.). Grabbing evidence, using nonverbal communication to try and
intimidate the other side, foul language, etc. will be considered in my decision. Being rude only causes me to think you are
jerks and are afraid you won‘t win on the merits. I do, however, expect and understand the need to be assertive. There is a
difference. Be polite and professional.

Poor reasoning: Be clear and logical! Please show me errors in reasoning and give me solid critical thinking. Please
attack the links in a chain argument and show me probability. I‘m not buying that hunger in South Africa will lead to
world destruction via a nuclear war (though a quarter final round national high school debate team not only did, but never
attacked the chain argument). Point out assumptions and convince me those assumptions are to be believed or not.

Evidence is great, but I can get evidence that says whatever I want. The key is what the debater does with the evidence.
Qualify your sources and establish your warrants. Show me why I should or should not believe a piece of evidence e.g.,
poorly qualified source, more quantity of evidence on the other side, etc. Know your argument and how this evidence helps
it and remember your grammar: subjunctive is different than indicative and tags need to match what the evidence actually
says, not what a debater wants the card to say.

Tag teaming: not at this level. Here it is more important to develop the ability to stand on your own rather than develop
the ability to withstand tag teaming.

ID key issues. As part of the learning process, I try to identify the key point in a debate. This is a crucial skill for debaters
to learn because the goal is to win the war, not every battle.

Quality over quantity. I prefer a few issues debate well and with depth to a spread of poorly developed or shallow
arguments.

Neg. block: 2 NC and 1 NR create a problem, namely, aff. lacks a significant amount of time, in my opinion, to present a
fully developed response to new arguments developed by the negative. Therefore, I take this into consideration and do not
expect the same level of rebuttal to new arguments presented in 2 NC.

Tabula rosa: I am not a complete tabula rosa. My personal beliefs and opinions have no place in the round; however,
things that are clearly common knowledge I will assume. You don‘t need to prove to me the world is not flat or that there
are people who don‘t like the United States. However, I am pretty much open to any idea—especially if it is well thought
through and developed.

Cross Examination: in general, this is an area for improvement. I have heard the 1AC asked: ―Could you state the plan
in your own words?‖ First, the only answer needed is ―yes.‖ After all, neg. only asked if 1AC had the ability to do it, neg. did
not ask 1AC to do it. Second, the 1AC did just state the plan in her or his own words. Let us not waste time here: go for
clarification or set up a devastating line of questioning, etc.




                                                               26
Bourassa, Samuel
Affiliation: Rhinelander


Experiance: I am relatively new to the world of policy debate. This is my 4th year judging. I have never taken a class or
have competed in a policy debate. I don't enjoy speed, but if I can understand I will not fault you for it. What I do like are
arguments that you can summarize in your own words and rebuttals that weigh the round and tell me how to vote.

I allow open CX if both teams agree. I like road maps. I don't allow tag teaming. I enjoy polite and civil debates.


Paradigm: On the most basic level, I would classify myself as a tabs judge. However, I am a tabs judge only in the sense
that I do not vote on my own knowledge or opinions. I am willing to hear any argument you throw at me -- counterplans,
kritiks, topicality. It's all acceptable if you run it properly and are creating direct clash in the debate round. I am not a
liberal tabs judge -- in the sense that anything at all goes. I completely disagree with "nasty" game theory debate. Students
should not be taking their opponent's evidence without permission, they should not be running evidence to their partner
during constructives, and they should absolutely not stand over their opposition while they are delivering their speeches.
Furthermore, direct insults, foul language, and all other unethical behavior should be avoided. I find it extremely
disheartening that such behavior is encouraged, and don't believe teams that use excessive foul language or call their
competition stupid should be winning rounds. Given that, however, I realize I must exist within the current state of policy
debate. Therefore, you can still win the round if you are the better arguers -- but such behavior will significantly and
negatively impact your speaker points.

Preferences:

Value of Debate: I believe this activity should instill applicable and practical life skills in students. Many of my beliefs
were shaped by the WDCA and WHSFA objectives of debate. Below, I record some of those objectives and how they
translate into my preferences.

1. "Skill" Objectives:

A. To understand and communicate various forms of argument effectively in a variety of contexts.
For me, effective communication is important. I am fully capable of keeping up with your speed, but that doesn't
necessarily mean I want to hear it. Yes, I want a fast and engaging round. However, be very aware of bad speed. You're not
an auctioneer. You shouldn't be gasping, or sounding as though you are drowning. You shouldn't rely on distracting body
gestures or poor posturing to keep the pace.

B. To develop the ability to analyze controversies, select and evaluate evidence, construct and refute arguments.
My translation of this objective is to know why you're saying the words you're saying. Don't get so caught up in
needing an abundance of cards that you don't actually understand the information or arguments on those cards. Debate
should begin with an assertion, followed by reasoning, and evidence. It's not a sin to use logic and analytics in the debate
round -- as long as you can support your claims. Don't be afraid to use your OWN brain! Furthermore, refutation is
critical. I will pay attention to dropped arguments in the round. Affirmatives teams must remember that they have the
burden of proof.

2. "Intellectual" Objectives:

A. To learn theories that seek to explain the process of communicating arguments with people.

While it is important to use theory in the debate round, please use it effectively. Don't continue to drop terms just to sound
educated or impress me. You won't impress me if you use terms incorrectly. On the novice level, try to avoid topicality.
You were all given packets and limits. The plans are topical. Running T at Novice will only annoy me. At the varsity level,
only run T when it truly applies. Furthermore, don't tell me I need to vote for you because their plan is unfair and you
couldn't possibly be prepared -- but then continue to run an abundance of on and off case arguments that essentially
nullify your own claim of predictability. When running counterplans, make sure they are actually competitive and be able
to give me net benefit analysis. I am open to K arguments, but would like a viable alternative. Given this year's resolution,
I actually have found there are many great K arguments out there. DAs are certainly always acceptable, but we all know
some are simply ridicilious, so keep the nonsense (like the beef DA) in your debate boxes. In all rounds, impact analysis is
important and the final rebuttal is crucial. You need to tell me that I should vote for you -- and why I should vote for you.
Failure to do so is often acceptance of defeat.


                                                              27
Buck, Sera
School: Appleton East

Experience: While in high school, I partook in policy and public forum debates. I did extemporaneous and student
congress as well. This is my second year judging - and have been doing so in the South. I spend most of my time in the
experienced PF and LD pools though have been found in impromptu and extemporaneous pools as well. At the University
of Tennessee, I have done tournaments at the collegiate level in Parli-Style debate (a mash up of extemporaneous and
public forum).

Speed – I can handle about a 7.5 on a scale of 1 – 10 (ten being the fastest). Just be extremely clear on your tags and
signpost. Teams forget that sign-posting is necessary – I don‘t like guessing what you‘re trying to tell me. Make it clear and
easy for me.

Overall – I like a clean debate. In that, don‘t make a mess of fifteen arguments because you feel it is best to have a larger
quantity of arguments than your opponents; quality is key. I would rather you have 10 well thought out arguments instead
of 15 muddled arguments that have no links, no direct impacts, and are really just a time suck. Give me solid reasoning as
to why the Neg is abusive with their K, or how the AFF‘s plan text is abusive. Tell me why the impact is crucial to the
round. I need to know why your impact should be considered instead of your opponents. Give me a method to how I am to
weigh the round. If I don‘t have a set of guidelines, then I may choose something ridiculous.

Additional Information:

 1. Open cross-ex is fine by me; I do not mind taking evidence either as long as both teams are okay with this.
 2. Topicality is fine. If the Neg is going to use T as a central argument, then they need to provide a clear and complete T-
shell. Abuse needs to be outlined. Simply saying "they are abusive. Vote them down." is not enough for me. I am willing to
vote on it...when done right. The AFF needs to respond with "we meet" or a sufficient counter-interpretation with their
own standards. I feel that debate should be about more than the interpretation-game...but I will still listen and entertain
your arguments if that is your route.
 3. Counterplans are fine in my eyes. As long as it has all its parts - and is sufficiently presented, I will listen to it. Please
make it competitive by tossing out a DA or something of that nature. However, using it simply as a time-suck is annoying.
 4. I struggle with Kritiks in that I can never find them to be sufficiently presented to me. You should have a solid grasp of
your argument if you are going to use it. Again - don't use it just as a time-suck.
 5. I am not a personal fan of theory, simply because I do not find it adequately presented. A team that can present it to
me sufficiently, may earn just a few more points in my book.




                                                               28
Cook, Melissa
Affiliation: Homestead

Background: Club at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Second year as a coach for Homestead.

Paradigm: Policy, but I will look closely at Stock Issues. All I mean is that I do expect teams to argue Stock Issues, but that
if one stock issue goes to the neg, but the debate and plan is leaning overwhelmingly aff, I will vote Affirmative. I
appreciate you telling me how the information that you just read pertains to the debate. Reason being, I know what you
just said and how it pertains, but do you? I‘ve seen way too many negative teams get up there and run DAs that they know
nothing about. One good analytic can make or break a round. I also look for civility in rounds. Not necessarily an
overdrawn formality, but don‘t talk to your partner about the other team being stupid. I‘m right there. I can hear you. Be
nice, be respectful. That whole golden rule thing that you learned in kindergarten.

T: I voted on T a few times last year, but I haven't yet under this resolution. You‘re here to debate a resolution dictated to
you, not one of your own choosing. Don‘t argue about the definition of simple words (‗the‘, ‗a‘, ‗or‘) and don‘t argue that we
shouldn‘t be debating this resolution in the first place. As a neg, feel free to run T, but if the affs can come back with a
definition that fits their plan and is from a reputable source, that‘s good enough for me – I will take the aff definition. A
note about longevity of evidence: generally speaking, the newer the better; however, if a particular idea is generally
accepted as having stood the test of time, I think that there is a lot to be said for that.

CP: CPs should not be topical and the plan and CP should be mutually exclusive. Overall, I want affs to be affs and negs to
be negs. I do NOT want to see a neg team run only a CP, but if it fits, run it. PICs tend not to work.

Cross-Ex: Should be one-on-one. I will allow open cross-ex under 2 conditions. First, both teams must agree to it. If one
out of four doesn‘t want open, it won‘t be. Second, it should be primarily one-on-one, with just a little help from the
teammate. You will be judged as a TEAM, and having one fabulous debater will not make up for a lazy one.




                                                              29
Dennis, Josh
Affiliation: SPASH, Appleton East

I was a debater in high school and have been judging for three years, two of which are VSS and the other one was NSS and
V4. I've judged about 50 rounds this season, roughly half NSS and half VSS.

What are your thoughts on the rate of communication? What emphasis do you place on persuasive
communication? Do you place any restrictions on cross-examination?
A: I'm completely alright with speed reading, and all four people getting involved with CX is completely fine as well. I don't
think that persuasiveness and speed are as mutually exclusive as some would like to think, though I know that people are
prone to thinking that a commanding voice and speed compensate for a lack of dedication and intelligence, and those who
think so will be judged accordingly.

What kind of debate do you like seeing: one with many different issues or one with a few in issues that
are discussed in-depth?
A: I have no preference between the two styles, ultimately a team that runs 8 off will boil it down to two or three by the
2NR regardless.

What are your thoughts on Topicality? What does the negative need to do in order to win on Topicality?
Do you need to see in round abuse or is potential enough? Is topicality a voting issue? Is topicality a game
of competing interpretations?
A: Coming from SPASH, I love T to death. In round abuse is obviously a more decisive way to win in any case, but kids do
have the ability to argue that potential is enough and get me to vote on it. T is definitely a game of competing
interpretations, and whoever convinces me of which is superior will be voted on accordingly. I'm also a really huge fan of
discursive impacts as independent voters on a T flow.

What are your thoughts on Counterplans? Do they need to be non-topical or just competitive? Are there
any kinds of counter plans you find particularly objectionable?
A: All forms of CPs are fine by me as long as they can be proven relatable to the case; I have no biases one way or the other.

What are your thoughts on Kritiks/critiques? How do you weigh different kinds of impacts? Do you need
to find a functioning alternative in debate?
A: I totally dig K's, even utopia fiats. The thing about K's is that the vast majority of them are flat-out wrong, so despite the
widely held opinion that K's are the closest thing that policy debate has to cheating, I'm also of the opinion that beating
most K's really only requires a mild amount of literacy and a loss to a K is just as easily punishable as a K that makes no
sense whatsoever whose link story is the most bogus thing on earth. Run at your own peril, answer at your own peril.

How do you think about conditionality and negation theory?
A: Personally I think that conditionality rules and the only burden the negs really have is to prove why the aff is bad,
whether that creates multiple conflicting "worlds" or not. Though, with that said, affs that have seriously thick "condo bad"
blocks (read: every aff who cares) can undoubtedly get me to vote on it as well as ignore conditional arguments. I don't
carry bias into the round on this.

What are your thoughts on theory? Do you have suggestions for debaters on theory debating in front of
you?
A: Kids that are creative with theory arguments get votes from me, like every other type of argument. I'm personally a
really big fan of being told how to frame a round as a judge if done properly. Be creative and convincing and you'll get a
vote.




                                                               30
Devine, Brian
Judging Constraint: Janesville Parker

Experience: I was a policy debater in high school, and I also did one year as an LD debater. I have been the debate coach at
Janesville Parker since 1995. I have judged an average of 25-30 rounds of debate each year, for a lifetime total of around
400 rounds judged. The majority of these rounds have been varsity policy, with about 60 percent of those being V4 and 40
percent VSS. I was active in forensics in high school, and I have been a forensics judge for the past 15 years. The last two
years I have been assistant forensics coach at Parker. I also coached a mock trial team in Minnesota in the early 1990s.

Preferences as a judge:

--Debate is a communication activity. Clarity and precision in speaking are valuable to me.

--While I don't object to the use of speed in delivery if the quantity of material to be covered justifies it, I find that the use
of speed hurts more than it helps when clarity and precision are its victims. If your use of speed is clearly meant only to be
more difficult for your opponents to follow, I will tend to see it as defeating the communicative purpose of debate.

--Cross-examination should occur between the debater who is questioning and the debater who is being questioned.
Participation by the other two debaters, while it may sometimes be enlightening, reduces the responsibility of each debater
for his or her role in the round. For this reason, tag-teaming is frowned upon.

--I would rather see a few issues debated clearly and effectively than many different issues mentioned but without effective
follow-through. It takes a talented team to keep multiple issues on the flow while managing all their arguments effectively.

--The affirmative team is responsible for offering a plan that implements the resolution, so I place a high value on
topicality. If the negatives can persuade me that the plan is not topical, they are essentially proving to me that neither
team is really asking me to affirm the resolution and that I therefore have no reason to vote affirmative. Having said that,
if the negatives run topicality but the affirmatives are able to convince me that they are indeed topical, this stock issue
would definitely weigh against the negatives in the final analysis. If the plan is topical, therefore, the negatives should
leave T alone and focus on other issues.

--If topicality is an issue in the round, I would expect that both teams would then treat it as very important. I would want
to hear clear reasons why the plan is or is not topical under a given definition, and I would want clear standards given if
there is a clash between definitions. I am inclined to view T as a voter, so affirmatives would be better served to explain to
me how they are indeed topical rather than trying to convince me I shouldn't be voting on something as fundamental as
whether their plan does in fact implement the resolution.

--If negatives choose to run a counterplan, they need to keep something in mind: Running a topical counterplan is in
essence affirming the resolution, so if I am faced with the aff plan and a topical neg CP, with both sides affirming the
resolution my vote is automatically going to be affirmative, regardless of other considerations. In other words: I will not
vote for a topical CP. To get my vote, the CP would need to be non-topical as well as mutually exclusive, and it must offer
superior solvency and/or greater net benefits, etc.

--I am open to kritiks, provided they are explained clearly (preferably with real-world impacts) and an alterntative is
clearly presented. Since I don't spend much of my time in the world of K, it is helpful for me to hear from the teams as to
how I should weigh the impacts and why.

--I am open to considering questions of debate theory if it helps to confirm a workable framework for weighing the issues
in the round. Debate about theory shouldn't really dominate a policy round, but it can often be useful in determining why
certain arguments should be given more or less weight. Again, clarity in making these arguments is important.

--Taking conditional positions is sometimes justified but requires a clear and logical explanation as to both why they are
being taken and how I am being asked to flow and weigh them.

--My overall paradigm: I am most closely oriented to a stocks paradigm, because I find that the stock issues give me an
objective list of criteria for weighing the round. However, because of the extensive and valuable use of advantages,
disadvantages, kritiks, etc. at the varsity level, I am also open to including these as issues to be considered in the final
analysis. I am open to persuasion on the relative weight that all these arguments and issues should be accorded. To
summarize: I can probably best describe my paradigm as being 60 percent stocks and 40 percent policy, with those
numbers being a bit flexible given effective persuasion in-round.


                                                                31
Hansen, Dan
I profess to have an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of
policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she
felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president. EVERYTHING you
do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. Not specifically any president, especially one
with little to no command of the English language, just a hypothetical president. For those worried about or intrigued by
the implications, here's a guide:

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the
president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too
fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we
fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I didn't bother writing them down. You respect
the office or you don't get an audience with the president.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I
should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the
round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, and you're just showing off your silly
squirrel definition, I'm likely to put the secret service on you. So make sure you have a good case in reality, not in
debateland.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything
leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This
goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing you to be a nutcase and your
impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must
keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each
sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should
care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if
the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizzare solipsistic construction a
strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the
resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on
non-realistic K above.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards
at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to
consider.

Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the
seriousness of the fake situation.




                                                              32
Jackson, Neil
My experience with policy debate: I am an external policy judge for Rufus King High School as I was on the Merrill High
School Debate Team from 2002-2008. I debated primarily policy my entire six years of debate but have had some
experience in public forum. I'm three years out of debate (currently a Junior at the University of Wisconsin - Madison).


General Paradigm:

My judging paradigm is more traditional. I consider myself a ―stolicy‖ judge, weighting both stocks and policy issues
heavily in the round.

Off-case arguments:

General: I tend to vote on disadvantages and counter plans more often than I have topicality and kritiks.

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue but for me to buy a topicality argument, the affirmative plan should be blatantly un-
topical. If AFFs feel they are clearly not un-topical, a "we meet", framers intent, or counter definition typically suffices.

Kritiks: I do not like ―out there‖ super-theoretical kritiks (the human psyche, for example). I really only want to hear real
world impacts that I can "wrap my head around". Otherwise, kritiks should be non topical and present an alternative.

Disadvantages: Of course, DA's are great. Please outline clearly your link, uniqueness, brink (optional), and impact. Good
strategy is to run solvency in addition to DA - "Not only does plan not solve, but it makes status quo worse!".

Counter Plans: Of course, counter plans are great. Should include a counter plan text, be non-topical, be mutually
exclusive, solve, and have net benefits.

Some other random technical things:

 * speed is fine,
 * no open cross examination,
 * you can grab evidence after the speaker is done reading from it so you can analyze it at your desk,
 * please speak with inflection and passion,
 * splitting the neg block is fine,
 * new arguments in the 2NC is fine,
 * please demonstrate your knowledge and understanding by explaining and analyzing your arguments in your own
words, and
 * don‘t forget to weigh the round!




                                                              33
Knetzger, John
Background: I debated for Cedarburg in the early 90s, winning a state championship in the 4 speaker division and
breaking to the elims in VSS. I'm in my second year as the assistant coach at West Bend following stints as the head coach
at Homestead and an assistant at Cedarburg. I'm constrained against West Bend and Homestead. This hardly matters, but
I'm a stay at home Dad and part-time church musician.

I've been around this activity for a while and the more I judge, the more I realize I've become an "old school" judge and I'm
OK with that. It's lead me to a few conclusions about what I believe about debate. Since you're going to be speaking in
front of me, you should know what they are:

1. I'm not really impressed by speed, especially when I can't understand what you're saying. Effective speakers will not go
faster than their skill allows. One warning is all I'll give before my flowing stops until you correct yourself.

2. I'm also not overtly impressed with critical/philosphical affirmative or negative positions. Run them if you want, but I'm
always looking for something tangible to vote for.

3. I don't think it's possible for nuclear war/extinction to always be the imapct for everything. If I'm going to die no matter
what, why should I bother voting?

4. Communicating is about listening and speaking. When the other side is talking, I think it's your job to be seated and
paying attention. Don't walk over and grab cards, leer over the reader's shoulder, etc. You've got cross-x to ask questions.

5. Civility is required. That means treating your opponents with respect, not using inappropriate language, etc. If you can't
handle these things, you will receive a substantially lower speaker point total from me.

6. Both sides have a burden of proof for their offensive arguments. If that burden isn't met, I will not vote on that position.

7. I remain hopefull that line by lines still exist somewhere in the world. Prove to me that you are flowing and can refute
what the other side is saying with specifics and you'll go a long way to earn my ballot. When all teams to is read
preformatted blocks and extensions, I'm often left with having to look at the round based on #6 above.

8. My job isn't to figure things out for you. Don't assume I'm dumb, but prove to me that you have a solid grasp of your
agruments. If you don't, I'm not likely to give them a ton of weight on my ballot.

9. WDCA rules govern the round. Please know what they are. Beyond that, roadmaps are for mostly for my benefit and not
timed. When the round ends, my thoughts to you will be on the ballot for you and your coach to read later. I won't hold up
the tournament and inhibit the coaching process by sharing exactly the same thing aloud.

10. I'm happy to clarify anything on this page which is confusing to you. However, I will not do so when it is clear that you
haven't read it in the first place. At this stage of the game, there isn't a reason for that. I've spent time putting this together
and somebody put in a lot of time compiling and posting all of the paradigms. Having knowledge of what judges are
hoping for demonstrates respect for them and for the process.

11. If what you've read here leads to you to prefer me with a 'C', you won't make me feel bad. really.




                                                                34
Martner, Casey
I am a Tabs judge and as such am willing to listen to any type of debate argument. That should describe my paradigm
pretty well.
This includes: K, Topicality, Policy, Stock Issues, and Counterplans. I may be missing something in that list, but I will
listen to it.

Some notes on what I would like in round:

-Please impact your arguments, I understand most impact scenarios - but feel free to summarize (it only helps you)
-Sign posting should stand out from the rest of your reading (watch to make sure I right them)
-Other than that speed is okay with me
-Being organized in your speeches is beneficial (doesn't have to be line by line, but jumping around means I am spending
more time trying to follow you than weighing your arguments)
-Road-maps are not timed when they are short, please give them and please follow them, it goes along with being
organized
-Open cross-x is okay when it is limited, the person who is supposed to be speaking should do 90% of the cross-x
-Clash THIS IS A BIG ONE: Counter the opponents arguments, analyze the evidence, why is yours better
-Weigh the round, perhaps show how you weigh the round using different paradigms
-Be polite

Other Information:

  1. Who should you not judge? I have not been a coach for 2 years now, but I did coach at Waukesha South.
  2. Were you a policy debater in high school? Yes, I debated in VSS for three years.
  3. Are you a coach of a team? I coach for 4-5 years at Waukesha South.
  4. Did you debate in college? No I did not.
  5. How long have you been involved with debate? I have been involved in debate for 11 years now, and have been judging
for 7.
  6. What are your thoughts on the rate of communication? I don't mind speed, but it doesn't mean that you can ignore the
other fundamentals of debate like being persuasive.
  7. What emphasis do you place on persuasive communication? I will put it this way, I would prefer a team go slower to
be more persuasive if they cannot do both. Speed w/ pervasive is the best mix.
  8. Do you place any restrictions on cross-examination? Look above, if you don't follow that I will take it out in speaker
points.
  9. What kind of debate do you like seeing: one with many different issues or one with a few in issues that are discussed
in-depth? Either one works, but I prefer analysis - if that means you need to only have a few issues than that's okay.
 10. What are your thoughts on Topicality? No Preference.
 11. What does the negative need to do in order to win on Topicality? Prove the other team is not topical, and give me
reasons to vote on it.
 12. Do you need to see in round abuse or is potential enough? Prefer actual abuse, but if you feel you can argue potential
abuse go for it.
 13. What are your thoughts on Counterplans? No Preference.
 14. Do they need to be non-topical or just competitive? A counter plan is supposed to be non-topical.
 15. What are your thoughts on Kritiks/critiques? No Preference.
 16. How do you weigh different kinds of impacts? I don't put any weight on one or the other, as a debater you can try to
influence me on this.
 17. What are your thoughts on theory? If you can argue it well go for it, just a note to the other team - refute it if you need
to, offer a competing viewpoint.




                                                              35
Reynolds, Parker
Affiliations: I have not debated or coached for any schools in Wisconsin, so there should be no conflicting interests.

Background: I debated in Kansas at Shawnee Mission East all four years of high school, the last two in Varsity, reaching
state my senior year. I also attended several summer camps and policy sessions at the University of Kansas. While I was in
high school I also participated in forensics, reaching state in Poetry my junior and senior years. I have judged at numerous
tournaments and at all levels of policy debate since 2003.

I am comfortable with quick communication rates, although I do prefer sound arguments and justified reasons for a
team's position. I enjoy hearing in-depth arguments about the important topics of the round, however I do see value in
discussing several topics and allowing for a broad and complex view. Above all else, however, I do expect the affirmative
not to drop any stock issues unless strong justification is given. I think that Topicality is a viable topic during a debate, and
will consider any topicality arguments, but unless the negative can show a gross violation it will take more than just
topicality to win. Counterplans and Kritiks are fine with me, although in both cases I will put a slightly higher burden on
the negative team as opposed to advantages/disadvantages or stock issues where the affirmative has a higher burden. I do
not care if Counterplans are non-topical, or what types of objections the Kritiks make, as long as their merits are argued
well. I prefer counterplans and kritiks that are either dispo or unconditional as opposed to conditional if the negative team
is attempting to merely spread the affirmative. However, if the negative has strong justification for making conditional
counterplans or kritiks, then I am willing to accept them as valid arguments. If a team makes the round unfair in some
way I will entertain theory arguments, however I've found them difficult to execute and think it is unlikely that a team can
win a round on theory alone.




                                                               36
Russell, Charles
am Charles Russell and have been involved with debate for 7 years now. I debated for 3 years with Mukwonago
highschool, 2 of which were at varsity level in the policy field. After i finished highschool i began to judge rounds as
availible, meaning every other weekend for the first 2 years and then a bit less frequently in the last couple of years.

I, like my old high school debate coach, have a more old-school policy style judging philosophy. Simply put in round you
should view me as the ultimate power, the president. Obama doesn't exist in my rounds, last year Bush didn't exist. You
are trying to convince me that this is the best policy for the United States. Of course this isn't all that the round will be
about so i have provided some additional information on what i would like to see in my rounds below.

Speed: What i want to see here is very simple, clearly spoken arguments with depth to them. If you think that speaking fast
is all there is to a good debate you would be wrong in my eyes. Often in my rounds the faster speaking team will lose
because they lack any sort of clarity of speech or they don't put any substantial weight on any issues, instead focusing on
filling my flow with as many issues as they can so in the end they can just rattle off a list of points the other side missed.
The best thing to do is speak at a rate that you don't have to question yourself about and give your arguments some weight
and depth. If you think you need to ask me if you are to fast then don't speak so quickly, slow down and breath once in a
while. If you go to fast your argument isn't on the flow and it never happened in the round.

Topicality: In round i don't mind seeing a bit of T. It can be understandable at times because there are cases that are
outside of the bounds of the resolution. If you run a topicality argument as the negative you have to prove to me that there
is abuse in the round, not that there is the potential for the abuse to happen. I'm not going to vote for a case that sends
peanut farmers to the moon to bring money back to earth to pay everyone receiving money from any sort of social
service...It doesn't make sense. If you are going to argue T make sure that there is a violation and that you can explain
where the violation is. Don't bother to give me any voters either, i give you your voters, abuse and jurisdiction.

CP: I like to see a good CP, make sure you are non-topical and competitive though. Give me whatever CP you can think of
and i will give it consideration, as the "President" i am looking for multiple viewpoints and multiple possibilities for
improvement. On the other hand you can't just present a CP then say you are better, i want to see attacks on the
plan...DA's, solvency issues, ect. Give me something to think about.

Kritiks/Critiques: Honestly i'm not a big fan. Most of the K i see is completely out of whack. It doesn't pertain to the real
world and the alternative is something that isn't possible outside of the world of debate. If you want to run K, feel free so
long as it is real world and there is an actual workable alternative. Beyond that make sure that you can explain your
argument as well, most times i see K it is just read out and the debater can't understand a word of what they just said...
They just know that the file was given to them to read in certain circumstances. If in doubt, just don't run it.

Advantages/ DA's: I want this debate to be in the real world. Don't tell me that Jim crossing the road is going to cause
nuclear war. Give me something like Russia's potential negative reaction to an expanding american army being the cause
of war. If everything leads to nuclear war then i'm likely to start dropping your DA's. The same applies to the Aff.

Theory: one word, Don't. I want to see argument on the resolution, not on the practice of debate itself.

All that i really have left to say is have fun and make sure you put enough emphasis on anything that you feel is of
importance.




                                                              37
Shanker, Kripa
Name: Kripa Shanker
School: Homestead High School
Experience:
- 6 years policy debate at Homestead (2 middle school, 4 high school at V4 level)
- First Year Coach Homestead Debate
- Currently Debating for Marquette University (NPDA)
Biased Towards: Homestead
Rate of Communication: It is my strong belief that there is no correlation between rate of speaking and ability to
debate. Granted, I can flow and follow speed as long as one is not panting for air between words and every syllable is
pronounced.
Topicality: Whether us judges like it or not topicality has become a part of debate and subsequently a voting issue. That
is, I will listen to the argument and have to floe it if it goes unanswered and the Negatives bring that up. Otherwise, any
good T answer that goes only contested by a basic T violation will flow Affirmative unless the Negative team vividly
shows that the Affirmative is non-topical.
Counter Plans: I will listen to non-topical counter plans and theory on the counter plans including conditionality as
long as there are good arguments to back the theory. This however assumes that the ones who run the counter plan know
what a counter plan really is, a test of the 1AC.
Kritiks: As a philosophy major I will listen to all K as long as the student actually understands what they are saying. For
instance, if a debater claims to have understood Being and Time on their first read, I will doubt it.
Theory: I will listen and flow theory as long the teams that argue theory actually understand what it is that they are
saying as opposed to simply reading a theory file with no comprehension of their advocacy.
Overall*: I am a Tabs judge; that is, I advocate the notion of tabula rasa. This, beyond the literal translation, has an
implied advocacy or enthymeme about my judging. What that means is that, like John Locke himself, I will follow
enlightenment thinking (unless a K changes my mind) including the notion that logic and persuasion are key. If a debater
can use the opposition's logic in turning their arguments, than that is a job well done. In weighing things, the more the
debaters try to convince me, the better. The best debates are the ones where the debater makes logical arguments,
understands the implications of what they are saying, and manages to refute their opposition. As a debater, I understand
the value of a fair judge and highly appreciate them myself when debating. Subsequently, I will be as fair as possible.




                                                            38
Surprenant, Linda
POLICY BACKGROUND
I was a policy debater for Sheboygan South HS (1972-1974). I did some judging while in college. I became involved with
debate again, starting in 2002 I was an assistant coach for Muskego HS (2003-2004). I have been head coach since 2005.

POLICY PREFERENCES
I am a stocks judge. Solvency arguments are my favorite of the stock issues. Topicality must be specific to the affirmative
case. Speed is okay as long as I can flow it. I prefer quality over quantity. I don't allow open C-X or tag-teaming.
Fundamental clash must exist. I prefer evidence-based arguments over analytical arguments. I also like to hear an analysis
of the evidence presented when appropriate. Counter-plans are acceptable, but must be non-topical. Limited critiques are
okay.




                                                            39
Willkomm, Geoff
I have judged High School Debate for seven years now. JV and Varsity have constituted 90% of the last two years.
I have adopted an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy
paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was
the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president.

EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president. Here's a guide as to how I
deal with different aspects of the round:

Structure:
When structuring your case/arguments for a speech, outlining is IMPERATIVE. (i.e. using: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. or a. b. c. d.) This
allows both me to easily know which arguments you are referencing and attempting to pull through. (i.e. "Pull my
Solvency 3 Card that says...") Also, do not use 'NEXT' or 'AND' when transitioning between cards, you will lose a lot of
cards in the round because I did not realize you switched to a new card. In the case of Dis-Ads, make sure your
Uniqueness, Link, Impact(s) are clearly labeled as such. For Topicality, clearly state what it is. Same goes for
Counterplans.

Speed:If you think that speaking fast is all there is to a good debate you would be wrong in my eyes. Often in my rounds
the faster speaking team will lose because they lack any sort of clarity of speech or they don't put any substantial weight on
any issues, instead focusing on filling my flow with as many issues as they can so in the end they can just rattle off a list of
points the other side missed. I prefer QUALITY over QUANTITY. You would NOT go into a meeting with the president
and read at 5000 words a minute. He would kick you out in a heartbeat. I will announce you‘re speeding twice, telling you
to slow down, if you continue to read too fast, I will stop trying to flow your speech.
Depth and analysis, not amount, is going to sway my decision.
Topicality: I don‘t mind Topicality as long is it is a real argument. I hired the Aff Team to present a plan under the
resolution. That being said, If you get up there and read topicality on the word ―The‖ or ―by,‖ chances are I won‘t listen to
them.

Dis-Advantages: Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads
there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for
both sides. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy.
New Arguments in the 2NC: Brand new Off-Case Arguments are not allowed in the 2NC, UNLESS, you can justify why
they are in the 2NC.

Splitting the Neg Block: If you split the Neg block, as the 2NR don‘t get up there and tell me they didn‘t spend enough time
countering your 13 minutes of arguments and evidence. To cover 13 minutes of stuff in 5 minutes and still pull your own
arguments and evidence through is a challenge all in itself. So, I will tend towards 1AR leniency.

Counter-plans: Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc.
You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists
who will each sell me their own Aff plan.

Kritiks / Critics: Kritiks must function in the real world and have policy alternatives. The president absolutely should care
about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or Neg Counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the
American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a
strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it
.
Performance:"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance
makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the
comments on non-realistic K above.

Theory:I am okay with Abuse-Theory such as theory on picks. What I will not listen to is Rules-Theory such as "We can't
argue the Aff plan until we fix the problems with Debate in general." I am the president, trying to vote on whether or not
the Aff plan is good. I am NOT voting on how the debate round should or shouldn't be conducted.

Critical Arguments: I will listen to these, but your chances of winning are slim based on the fact that I am the president
and I have to worry about the people in my country and will be unlikely to vote for a plan that will lead to the death of
everyone in my country.




                                                              40
Cross-Examination: Tag-Team, Open C-X, Whatever you want to call it, I am okay with it to a degree. Yes, I understand
that you occasionally need help answering a question, or a question slipped your mind. With that said, you should still
KNOW your case/evidence that you read. If your partner asks/answers more than you in your C-X, you both will lose
speaker points. I understand that you might want to make sure your partner gets to an argument.
Analysis: This is KEY for you to win arguments. Analyze your evidence. It helps me to understand what you‘re saying, why
you read that card, and what this does to counter other evidence. It is especially useful when you are Turning an
argument... Explain how you are turning the argument.


Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards
at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to
consider.
Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the
seriousness of the fake situation.




                                                              41
Varsity Two Person Policy Debate Judges




                   42
Barnett, Katherine
Constraints: Neenah

Experience: I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater as a high school students and I attended exactly one tournament in Policy
debate in order to fill out a four person team. Since then, this is my second year as a judge and my first year as the head
coach at Neenah High School. While my experience is somewhat limited I have learned quite bit from coaching this year
and I have judged more than 30 Policy debate rounds this year.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa with a few exceptions. There are no arguments that I will outright not weigh in the round but
Kritiks that are crazy or run poorly irritate me. If you are going to run a Kritik, be sure you understand it and go for it
whole heartedly.

Counterplans: I have no limitations in terms of counter-plans.

Theory: I am generally okay with theory arguments as long as they are clearly explained and impacted.

Speed: Generally I have no problem with speed. However, you need to be clear. I am willing to yell clear if I cannot
understand you but please do not make me do so repeatedly.

Topicality: I will vote on topicality if the violation is legitimate or if the affirmative team ignores a topicality attack. I am
more likely to vote on the issue if in round abuse can be proved.

What I consider a good round: I like to see a lot of clear clash and solid crystallization in the rebuttals. I want each team to
explain clearly to me what I should vote for and why I should do so. Impact calculus is also very important; explain to me
why it would be significantly detrimental of the world if I choose to vote against your team. I like the presumption of Fiat. I
am also a Congress judge and I enjoy the idea of pretending that what we are arguing about actually happens. As a result, I
prefer real world impacts to in round impacts.




                                                                43
Charles, Noah
Marquette University High School '09
Northwestern University '13

Background: I debated for four years at the high school level for MUHS, and I'm currently a freshman at Northwestern
University. I judged at the novice level twice last year, but other my judging experience is limited.

Basic Opinions: Although I'm very willing to vote for anything that is both well-articulated and supported by decent
evidence, I am of the opinion that some sort of factual consistency should exist in the round. That said, I'm not looking for
debaters to present a PhD thesis on any particular topic, but rather encouraging a depth of knowledge that proves you
know the topic well. This is especially important on the affirmative, and in critical argumentation. In short, make sure
your evidence quality and comprehension are where they should be.

I try not to do work for either side, but if certain gaps are left at the end of the round, I'll generally default to evidenciary
comparison. Therefore, it's to your benefit to tag your cards correctly.

I think technical skill is important, and it will definitely boost your speaker points. However, technical ability is never a
replacement for good argumentation. If you run stupid arguments in a fantastic technical manner, be prepared for a high
point loss.

In round, my pet peeve is wasting time. Just don't steal prep, or I will become very annoyed.

Finally, I think it's important to mention that I haven't read very far into this topic. As we speak I'm reading what I can to
try to get a grip on everything, but if you make a reference to how "common something is on this topic" or "the core of the
topic" I'm going to ignore you unless you have something to support that claim.

Specific Arguments:

Disads: Obviously pretty straightforward, just make sure the internal links actually exist. Big impact claims aren't
necessarily bad, but more often than not they're just not true.

Kritiks: I spoke a little about kritiks above: make sure you understand what you're saying. I'm also not a big fan of the
kritik whose meaning isn't fully clear in the 1NC, and then becomes something absurd in the block. Ultimately, kritik
debate for me always depends most heavily on the way the impacts are framed: either the argument becomes "their
mindset/assumptions kill v2l and make children explode," or the far superior argument "the fallacy of their assumptions
justifies x, y, z and therefore we should not evaluate the debate using their rhetorical tools." Also, I think there's a
fundamental distinction between kritiks of politics or policy (ie. "look at the debate beyond the level of
policy/policymaking bad") and kritiks concerning rhetoric or representations (ie. "something in this specific policy or this
justification of this policy is wrong"). I think both have their merits, but oftentimes the former can become a bit absurd
and changes the framing mechanism so much that the debate ceases to be about the substance of the kritik. In those cases,
I think rounds become far worse and less interesting, and I would always appreciate the kritik being the focus of the
round. provided you're going for it.

Topicality/Theory: I wasn't a T debater in high school, but I'm certainly not opposed to voting for it. There are
certainly plans which blatantly flaunt their borderline non-topicality, and teams that run them should be challenged.
However, there are a few caveats: DO NOT use a stupid interpretation or counter interpretation. Should isn't the past
tense of shall, your case isn't the only topical case, and A-Spec/O-Spec is almost always stupid. DO NOT read a thousand
one-sentence standards. Most of them probably suck anyway. I said before I enjoy depth of argument, and that certainly
applies here. DO use evidence if you have it. T debates with evidence are great. And it basically goes without saying that
reverse voters don't exist, and T is almost always a voter.

Theory is its own issue, although a lot of the same rules apply. The key difference in theory debates is articulating correctly
why the opposing team should lose because of what they've done. If there isn't a good answer, don't even bother.

Counterplans: Process counterplans, agent counterplans, states counterplans, all generally dumb. My threshhold for
voting against these arguments is not very high--I think 50 state fiat bad or the permutation can be argued very
persuasively. However, counterplans that actually have evidence, or are supported in literature, are incredible arguments.
If you can find these, run them and I will be happy.

A Final Note: I want to make sure I don't dissuade teams from running arguments that aren't common, but are well-
crafted. Crazy arguments and arguments with bad evidence are not necessarily the same thing. I'm definitely not going to

                                                                44
vote against a team just because their arguments are not mainstream or seem outlandish. The same goes for performance
arguments and abnormal debate styles in general--I'll definitely listen to arguments as long as they make sense and are
well supported.

Obviously, I'm happy to answer your questions before a round, but I feel that if you read this you should be in good shape.
Good luck.




                                                            45
Filak, Vince
Policy Debate Judging Statement Guide
When composing your policy debate paradigm/philosophy/preference statement, please attempt to answer these
questions:

 1. Who should you not judge? These are the schools you either coach for or debated for.

Pius XI

  2. What is your experience with policy debate? Were you a policy debater in high school? Are you a coach of a team? Did
you debate in college? If so, what kind of college debate did you do - NDT, CEDA, APDA, NPDA, NFA LD, etc? Did you
debate some other form of debate (public forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congressional) in high school? Have you been a
frequent judge? Were you involved in a summer institute? Have you been involved in related actives (such as forensics,
model UN, or mock trial/moot court)?

Three years high school debate, policy. VSS last two years. No college debate team was available for me in college. Did
extemp as well in high school for two years in forensics.

 3. How long have you been involved with debate? Are you a first-year out? (First-year outs are prohibited from judging
varsity divisions).

Been judging full-time since returning to the state in 2008. Spent parts of 1993-1998 judging. I have done policy, LD and
PF as well as three years of forensics judging.

 4. What are your thoughts on the rate of communication? What emphasis do you place on persuasive communication?
Do you place any restrictions on cross-examination?

Speed is fine if you can control it. Unfortunately, most people don‘t know if they can control it or not, so it can become a
problem. Good way to look at speed: A 90 mph fastball with good location always beats a 98 mph pitch if you have no idea
where it‘s going to go.

Open cross-ex is fine if both sides agree to it. Personally, I think it‘s a monumental waste of three free minutes of prep
time for your partner, but if you feel the need, go for it.

  5. What kind of debate do you like seeing: one with many different issues or one with a few in issues that are discussed
in-depth?

A wide-ranging debate can be great while so can a debate that focuses on only one or two issues. Each debate is like a
snowflake: no two are the same. Do what you want.

  6. What are your thoughts on Topicality? What does the negative need to do in order to win on Topicality? Do you need
to see in round abuse or is potential enough? Is topicality a voting issue? Is topicality a game of competing
interpretations?

T is always a voter, although it‘s not always worth voting on. The neg must show that there is clearly a problem with the aff
case. (Example: If the resolution calls for the removal of military presence and the aff case states they will remove all .45
cal pistols from the lockers of servicemen and women in Japan, you‘ve got a good T violation.) You can run a time-suck T
on occasion if it‘s close, but running three or four Ts, watching the other team pound you with them and then dumping
them in the next speech borders on abuse. That approach isn‘t endearing.

 7. What are your thoughts on Counterplans? Do they need to be non-topical or just competitive? Are there any kinds of
counter plans you find particularly objectionable?

  8. What are your thoughts on Kritiks/critiques? How do you weigh different kinds of impacts? Do you need to find a
functioning alternative in debate?

I group CPs and Ks together for this reason: Handing half of the neg teams I‘ve seen this year a counterplan and a kritik
file is like handing a toddler a bag of meth and an assault rifle. They run K with no sense of why they‘re running it or how
to use it to force me to vote in their favor. They run counterplans that they punt by the 2NC after they get killed. The affs
then spend half the time in the 2AC (or if it holds past the 2NC, in the 1AR) screaming ―perm‖ like they‘re at a hair salon.


                                                              46
At the end of the day, I have no problems with any particular arguments, if they are done well and the team that is making
the argument provides a solid rationale as to how this should factor into my decision. In the end, tell me to vote on
something and I‘ll vote on it. Tell me not to vote on it, I won‘t. Above all else, tell me WHY I should be doing what you
want me to do. Don‘t tell me anything and I‘ll do what I want and that will probably be disappointing to everyone involved.

 9. How do you think about conditionality and negation theory?

Fine with it, if the points are well made and the debaters tell me WHAT to do and WHY I should do it.

 10. What are your thoughts on theory? Do you have suggestions for debaters on theory debating in front of you?

I‘ll listen, but you‘ve got to give me value here. Don‘t tell me ―we‘re doing X‖ and expect that I‘ll understand and value it
the same way you do. Use your persuasive powers to get me the information I need to make an informed decision. And
again, just like every other argument/tool/approach in a round with me: If you‘re running it just to run it or just to see if
you can make the other team‘s heads pop off, I‘m not going to be a huge fan.




                                                              47
Glenzer, Sam
I fall under the confines of the tabula rasa judging philosophy.... so there isn't an argument I won't vote on if you're
winning on it. I do however have some preferences.

I debated for two years at SPASH, and since then I have been judging Varsity debate for four years now at in
state(Wisconsin) and national tournaments ranging from the Iowa Caucus to the NFL National tournament. I've judged
approximately forty rounds this year, including breaks, and so far I've voted negative roughly 60 percent of the time.

Very seldomly have I come across someone who is so fast that I literally cant catch a word they're saying so speed is highly
encouraged, but remember clarity. This doesn't however mean that several poor arguments will necessarily beat out one
well developed argument. If you aren't clear, I'll warn you twice, but if you're still unclear beyond that, look at me with my
pen down.

Since I work for a Mayor, politics are my favorite argument, but be sure that the uniqueness and link evidence are up to
date. This means it'd be neat to hear arguments about the upcoming midterm elections.

I love the kritik, and I've voted for it far more times for it than against it, but I hate when teams think its good enough to
keep repeating the same tag line of what their argument is but fail to understand what their author's original intent of
their writings were. I'd encourage an elaborate link story, especially with the Cap K since teams seem to run it in response
to anything under the sun. So please, please, please, be able to explain exactly what your kritik is trying to say in SPECIFIC
terms relative to the round. The framework/role of the ballot debate is also extremely important to my decision.

Counterplans are pretty sweet, and I prefer them to be of the competitive nature. It gets annoying when the entire debate
is dragged into a conditionality good or bad theory debate. That isn't saying I'm not a fan of it though. Expect a standing
ovation for 5 minutes of conditionality bad in the 2AR. It's always impressive, especially when its done well. When doing
this though it's important to impact your arguments as to why it's uniquely abusive in the case in the round. Without that
impact, its hard for me to find offense to vote on it.

In general when it comes to theory, I tend to have an anything goes attitude, provided that again, the arguments are well
impacted. I'd encourage you to try to articulate your 50 points clearly when you're going for them, since there's a chance I
may miss a blip if you're blazing through them.

Generic disadvantages are sometimes interesting to hear, but please be sure that they actually link when they are used,
and try not to double turn yourself. It makes the round painful for everyone.

In general, keep your evidence up to date. It's always a laugh to hear it called out when something thats already come to
pass. Call out your warrants, and don't lie about it either, because I will occasionally ask for evidence at the end of a round.

Topicality is probably my favorite issue and one of the least well run. Though sometimes acceptably argued as non-
substantive, the T debate keeps affirmatives in check. I value this as someone who believes that the resolution is only as
good as it is advocated.

I really really really don't like inherency arguments, and thankfully I haven't ever been forced to vote on it. I take that
back. Sadly this year that has changed. Instead I just have to live with that shame.

This might be rather lacking in details on face, so feel free to ask me any questions on any specific issues you might have,
I'm open to nearly any argument.... Performance affs are not recommended, but if you manage to win the debate, I will
vote on it.




                                                               48
Hass, Melissa
Background: I debated at Brookfield Central from 2002-2006 and graduated from the University of St. Thomas in 2010. I
am currently the assistant coach at Nicolet High School.

I am fine with speed as long as you are clear. I am willing to tell you that you are unclear but if you don‘t fix your speaking
I will just flow what I can get.

I generally view debate as an educational activity. This is how I tend to evaluate most arguments on how they affect the
educational exchange in the round. That being said, I do not want to here a bunch of abuse claims that are unwarranted.

Policy Preferences
- I like impact calculus, especially what the impacts within the round are outside the norm of nuke war leads to extinction.
I also really appreciate the aff pulling through their advantages through out the round if they want me to vote on them at
the end of the round.
CP Theory
- I tend to be persuaded towards the neg side on most of these arguments, although I have found that many rounds I have
judged this year have ended in a wash of the theory arguments because it became an attack of the blocks without any
further clash or explanation. I generally view theory arguments as ―drop the argument not the team‖ unless I am told to
treat it otherwise.
Topicality
- I generally have flowed towards the aff direction on T but I think is probably because I have not seen many good debates
on T. I have no problem with voting on T if it is argued adequately, meaning debaters go beyond their prewritten blocks to
show where abuse specifically happened within the round.
Kritiks
- In general, K‘s are not my favorite. If you are a team that is confident in running a K then go right ahead because I would
love to hear a good K debate. If you are a team that is running a K but doesn‘t really understand it then I would prefer you
to not try it in front of me. I would rather see a good debate on other topics.




                                                              49
Henning, Dave
David Henning—Policy Debate Judging Philosophy

Version 4.10.32—December 7, 2010


School Affiliation: Sheboygan South HS, Sheboygan, Wisconsin Position: Assistant Debate Coach

Rounds judged this season: 51 Lifetime: 1300+ (200 in last 3 years) Years Judging: 20+

Experience with academic debate: Policy debater in high school and college (NDT); CEDA and LD debater; frequently
judge policy debate; often judge Lincoln-Douglas debate; occasionally judge parliamentary debate.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don‘t insult my intelligence or agency. Be aware that if this not argued, I do not default
to a policy-making paradigm. That also holds for Framework arguments. And I don‘t do ―interactive‖ debate. It‘s your job
to speak during the round, not mine. I‘ll do my speaking after the round.


Topicality: Show me the abuse in this round. I care less almost by the week for the current state of the topicality debate,
especially the ―standards.‖ They never mean anything. ―Broader topics increase breadth, narrow topics increase depth.‖
That‘s nonsense. Nor do I like topicality debates that devolve into ―we increase education‖ or ―they decrease ground.‖ I
want actual abuse. Tell me which arguments you can‘t run, what education you are losing. If the affirmative has disclosed
their case/plan prior to the round (I will ask), I will not be impressed by negative claims that they couldn‘t predict this
affirmative or have nothing against it. You must also explain why topicality should be a voting issue in this round. By that I
mean more than a list of words. ―Topicality is a voter for fairness, jurisdiction and education‖—I don‘t know what that
means. 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. Actual abuse, in this round. Potential abuse is not enough. That means an abuse greater than the
negatives not getting to run a particular or favorite argument. For the negatives to win the round on topicality they must
commit to it seriously. This is a high standard for negatives to meet, but it is not insurmountable. I vote on topicality, even
in elimination rounds, but not often. In the past, when I did vote on topicality, negative teams went only for topicality in
2NR. But that is no guarantee—over the last four years teams with such strategies are 5-3 with me.

Counterplans: Counterplans are fine. You must tell me why the counterplan is competitive and what advantages result
from it. A counterplan that is mutually exclusive with the affirmative plan is a good standard. I am open well-constructed
exotic and agent-of-change counterplans. Try to make your counterplan net benefit something more than ―we avoid the
disad and the affirmative doesn‘t.‖

Advantages/Disadvantages: Put the bodies on the flow. That‘s a good way for me to evaluate the advantage or
disadvantage (or any argument), especially in a policy context. A nuclear war or the destruction of the biosphere and/or all
life on earth are all fine terminal impacts for an advantage or disadvantage, especially since ―all life on earth‖ includes me,
and a nuclear war is (usually) one of the only exceptions to my next sentence. Do not assume that something (anything) is
inherently good or bad. If you say the affirmative team stops (or causes) economic growth or saves money, so what?
Growth or saving money are not inherently good or bad—show me what results from that growth or that saved or wasted
money. It should be the same for all arguments. Impacts that are worse than death, such as dehumanization or loss of
liberty and the like, are fine as long as there is some tangible evidence to that effect. Please be aware that most rhetorical
evidence has limits, and often source quality issues, especially in comparison to actual or ―real‖ impacts either in or out of
the round, impacts that result from my ballot, or impacts on the activity itself. Claims that an advantage or disadvantage is
―generic‖ or ―not real world‖ or ―not common sense‖ (all of which I hate—what‘s generic, debate isn‘t the real world, and
―common sense‖ has little or no place in policy debate, evidence does) are disingenuous or an excuse for poor preparation;
don‘t whine about it, win it.

Kritiks: Kritiks must be explained. I really like the idea of the kritik, but rarely do I like the way kritiks are run. A one or
two card kritik is usually insufficient. If you are making the argument, make it. Give me reasons, explanations, solid
evidence from (hopefully) quality sources. Be aware that not all kritiks are created equal. And please explain your kritik
clearly—shouting ―Derrida‖ is neither explanation nor clarification, and rapidly slurring a phrase like ―Marxism without
Marx‖ proves and means nothing. Such a kritik would be inferior to a well-developed and evidenced kritik such as
American Exceptionalism, an argument that has both historical precedent and contemporary merit. Present me with an
interpretation as to why I should vote for the kritik. How and why does the kritik matter in this round? What will happen
if I sign the ballot in favor of the kritik? Does my ballot mean or do anything? Will it impact the world outside of the
round? Framework arguments often make or break kritiks. What should I look at (or adjudicate) first and how should I do
so? What level or ―world‖ are (or should) we be in for this round? Winning Framework is often the key to winning the

                                                               50
debate. That also holds true for critical affirmatives. Losing or conceding Framework is dangerous—the debate then occurs
(and is adjudicated) at the level or in the ―world‖ that the Framework demands. An alternative is nice but not essential for
a kritik. Please be able to explain your alternative. A straight-ahead alternative like Marxism or eco-authoritarianism is
usually preferable to esoteric ―graduate school‖ notions such as metabolic restoration or anything Martin Heidegger. As
with any argument, the clearest explanation of the K and/or the alt has the best chance to win my ballot. Even ―the
Digger,‖ for which (whom?) I voted more times over the past few years than I care to admit.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, but don‘t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach any more
qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? Explain your theory positions to me 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 in-
round abuse and tell me why it should be a voting issue. As for conditional arguments, they are neither inherently good
nor bad. I am not a fan of junking up the round with lots of conditional arguments or vacuous theory, about conditionality
or anything else. Conditional arguments should usually be of the nature that you could maybe win them if you chose to go
for them. If there is abuse, show me that abuse and tell my why it is bad. Most of what I said about topicality also applies
here. Arguments predicated upon ―punishing‖ the other team are ill-advised; such arguments usually hurt the team
making them. And remember, I do not default to a policy-making paradigm.

Delivery style: Speak loud 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. Speed is a tactic, not a strategy. Speed for the sake of speed helps no one; it‘s not ―cool‖ in
its own right, outside of legitimate tactical purpose. Please speak slower and clearer on tag lines and analytics. If I can‘t
understand or follow what you say it doesn‘t go on my flow, and then it‘s not in the round. I will shout ―louder‖ if needed. I
will shout ―clear‖ if a speaker is unclear. Each speaker gets two ―clear‖ and two ―louder‖ warnings per speech. After that,
the speaker is on his or her own. Third and subsequent warnings may each result in a loss of half a speaker point. Be aware
that if something is not on my flow it is not in the round. I will not call for a card or look at a block just to fill in stuff that I
missed because a speaker wasn‘t clear or loud enough. Purposeful speed is fine, but too often speakers try to go too fast
and sound as if their mouths are full of potatos Foucault. Go only as fast as you need to and choose your arguments
wisely—do you really need those last three vague and garbled blurbs on some topicality standard? Watch me periodically
to see if I am getting everything. And don‘t allow me to do any extra work for teams that are problematically unclear in
delivery or argumentation.

An ―Ideal‖ Round: There are no ideal rounds. Each round is unique and has its own (de)merits. A good round usually
consists of an affirmative case with big, clear advantages or well-explained and evidenced small ones. The negative will
present disads, counterplans and/or kritiks that are also specific and hopefully big sig in nature. Negatives should narrow
the number of issues in rebuttals. Specificity is always good, as long as it applies, and usually more is better. Bodies on the
flow, nuclear wars and things that outweigh nuclear wars make it easy for me to vote for you. Arguments on why these (or
other) impacts are important, hopefully the most important thing in this round, or something that says when I sign the
ballot it will have an impact on the world outside of the round, are good ways to go. I like arguments about mindsets and
language, although these are almost always done poorly. I like speakers who directly respond to and clearly resolve
arguments. I don‘t find it helpful when a speaker groups a bunch of arguments, and rather than responding specifically to
any one of them just reads some block of arguments against the grouping. Clash directly with the arguments of the other
team. I prefer fewer positions, ones that are more substantial, have more evidence and invite more clash. As long as you
have evidence, no position is too bizarre or counterintuitive, so be creative with your arguments. I recently voted for
immortality in an elimination round. And have fun—a little humor in a debate round goes a long way. If you are unclear
about my philosophy, ask me and I will do my best to explain it. The same holds about my decision. I am quite willing to
explain my decision and discuss how I saw the round.


―Nothing really matters much, it‘s doom alone that counts.‖ —Bob Dylan

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




                                                                 51
Jackson, Tyler
BACKGROUND:
Tyler Jackson is an assistant debate coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI. He debated for
Marquette from 2003-2006. This is his third year judging and coaching high school debate.

POLICY PHILOSOPHY:

Background:

I debated locally, regionally, and nationally at Marquette University High School for three years and graduated in 2006. I
have been an assistant coach at Marquette for the past two years while attending Marquette University. I was coached by
Andy Nolan and was coached by and have worked for Bill Batterman; those are my major debate influences.

Philosophy:

My argument preferences are largely unimportant: I am comfortable judging a wide variety of debates including those
typically characterized as "policy" and "critical." The content of your argument is less important than the way in which you
debate it – explanation, quality evidence, strategic decision-making, and comparative analysis are all more important for
winning my ballot than the genre or political orientation of your original arguments.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS PHILOSOPHY:

I come from a policy debate background, having never competed in LD, but I have judged the event quite a bit during the
past three seasons. My background in policy debate undoubtedly colors my predispositions about LD so consider yourself
warned.

If a framework (standard/criterion/burden) is accepted by both debaters, I will evaluate debates by filtering arguments
through the lens of the agreed upon framework. If the framework for evaluation is contested, I will evaluate debates by
first determining which framework is superior and then by filtering arguments through the lens of that superior
framework. Impact analysis is very important and is often the key determining factor in my decisions.

Stylistically, speed and highly-technical presentations are fine -- again, my background is in policy debate. I appreciate
debaters that read evidence to support their claims. I do not have much experience with advanced LD theory and as such I
am uncertain how I will evaluate theory debates, a priori arguments, critiques, counterplans, etc. You are certainly willing
to use these strategies but in general I will be evaluating your arguments from the standpoint of a policy debater; it will be
hard for me to conceptualize a critique, for example, without coloring my evaluation of the argument with my knowledge
of policy debate.




                                                              52
King, Stephanie
I have four years of policy debate competition in high school, five years of judging, and this is my fourth year coaching. I
am fairly new to the national circuit-the 2008 Glenbrooks was my first national tournament outside of the Marquette
Hilltopper in my hometown.

Debate-wise, I consider myself a policy judge. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the macro
picture-how many will die, why the mindset needs to change, etc. I am very open to hearing pretty much any argument.
Don‘t run more than 3 T in a round, please! Kritiks are perfectly fine and are welcome-I was a K debater myself. However,
if you try to tell me that giving everyone a puppy will save the world, I probably won‘t buy it. Regardless, go ahead and run
it-you may convince me. Counter-plans are my weak point. I understand them perfectly fine but I am not totally fond of
them. Please feel free to run them, but make sure the story with the Net Ben is very, very clear and that any theory on them
is explained well. Non-topical, topical, I don‘t really care. Theory and framework are fine by me.

I want roadmaps (not timed, of course) and signposting is helpful, especially if you stray from your roadmap. Speed is fine,
but please don‘t be gasping for air. PLEASE split the NEG block, it is there for a purpose and I don't want to hear the same
crap twice! Open Cross Ex is fine by me in everything but Novice. However, keep in mind that if you are rude or
interrupting your partner to ask a different question, your speaker point will be slightly affected.

Basically, as I said before, 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). I want good analysis
at the end of a round (2NR & 2AR mostly) to show me that you know what you read. Debate is about comprehension, not
just a reading test.


Stephanie King
Rufus King High School ||




                                                              53
Mehlos, Corey
Background:

I've debated policy for six years (HS/College) and coached for three. Although I've noticed that I've tended to vote negative
this year often using a policy framework with an emphasis on solvency (I was a negative for most of my high school career
and often ran Counterplan, Solvency, & DA), I love to see debaters think for themselves and learn something from the
round.

In-round expectations:

1) Be respectful: I admire debaters who show respect for each other in CX while setting up their arguments
2) Slow down when reading, especially for citations and key warrants/impacts
3) Organize your evidence
4) No tag-teaming during CX: I want to hear each person speak for her/himself

Paradigm (Storytelling): I view debate as two teams telling different stories and I love to hear stories that . . .

a) frame the round ("This debate is really about . . .: ),
b) clash, providing good warrants (refer to their/your warrants when you extend cards) and
c) evaluate realistic impacts (Tell me the "Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?)" I'm tired of hearing the same old
story that the world is coming to an end . . . I like it when debaters tell me what would realistically happen should a plan
pass, especially when it's supported by creative thinking and historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge.

My hope for debate is that youth realize that this activity isn't just a game. The issues we discuss impact real people, some
of whom we know, some of whom we may never meet, and we can all benefit from discussing the issues central to this
topic. As a storyteller, you are empowered to speak for/against policies that deeply impact communities, including persons
whose stories are often overlooked by the powerful interests that are the sources for much of the policy debate evidence.
Likewise, just because you may not have a "card" doesn't mean that you can't make an argument.

(I will vote only on relevant issues that are well-explained in the 2NR/2AR).

Specific Arguments

1) Topicality: If you're running it as a time suck, please save your time because I don't find that to be an argument that
helps us learn anything. I've voted this year on T a few times, including an extra T argument in which the negative argued
that the affirmative claimed non-resolutional advantages off of invading a country rather than withdrawaling troops).

2) On case: (refer to the paradigm info. above). An example of an affirmative harms story I enjoyed was US marines are
destroying the Okinawan habitat, jeopardizing the survival of their most cultural significant bird, the dugong (Japanese
for "messenger of the gods"), of which there are 50 left, risking cultural genocide. For solvency, statistics work well (i.e.
Withdrawal from Iraq has empirically proven to reduce violence: British withdrawal from Basra by 90%).

On the negative, please indict powertagged harms & solvency.

3) Disadvantages: the more specific the link, the better (the best links are when debaters reference their opponent's
evidence or cross-examination answer to explain how the plan ties into the disadvantage).

4) Counterplan: I very much enjoy counterplans which employdifferent ways to solve the same harms. I'm not very big
into theory so focus on solvency/the net benefit.

5) Kritiks/Critical affs: If you're serious about philosophy, let's talk of it outside of debate when we're not limited to two
hours and don't bother with generic kritiks. Acceptable kritiks in my view must have solid links (example: structural
racism) and an alternative . . . so I wouldn't say this is your best option but I vote on them if a) the affirmative drops them
or b) you can demonstrate empirical support for how the kritik is happened in the real world (ex. see Cultural genocide
under #2).

6) Theory: I'll try to be open to it but I probably won't vote on it.




                                                                54
Mills, Laurel
I debated for Sheboygan North HS for four years and qualified for the TOC my junior and senior years. I currently attend
the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

I‘ll listen to pretty much anything, so debate what you‘re best at and don‘t take my argument preferences below too
seriously. I am very flow-oriented and will try to intervene as little as possible.

Topicality: It‘s fine, but it‘s not my favorite. Impact calculus is important. I don‘t have any preferences in terms of which
types of interpretations I find persuasive. I default to a competing interpretations framework but can be persuaded
otherwise.

DAs: are good?

Counterplans: are great, the more specific the better…

I don‘t hate ―cheating‖ counterplans as much as most people. I won‘t get mad if you read them or dock your speaker
points, but I‘ll probably be persuaded by aff theory arguments because they‘re true.

Kritiks: I like them/went for them, but might not be very familiar with the more obscure literature. It‘s the same as with
counterplans - I love specific kritiks with clear alternatives but dumb/generic ones are likely to run into problems when
the aff answers are all true.

When I debated, I tended to think of the alt as the focal point of most K debates. I‘ll definitely be persuaded by specific
evidence on the mechanism of the alt and explanation of how it solves the impacts in the round. I‘ll also be persuaded by
good disads to the alt and reasons it doesn‘t solve the case or anything else.

Theory: Depends on how well it‘s explained/impacted. It might be difficult to win most counterplan theory in front of me
(except condo bad on which I tend to be ambivalent) unless there is clear abuse. Poorly developed and/or really stupid
theory arguments are a waste of time, I think most would agree.

Performance-based arguments: I am not the best judge for these. I will listen to them, but will not vote on things that
attempt to make personal appeals to me. I think these sorts of arguments must feel very invasive from a judge‘s
perspective and I will probably end up evaluating them the way I would most kritiks, including any framework debate that
takes place. No matter how true or persuasive your argument is to me as a person, I will not use that to intervene against
the other team.

Again, everything I‘ve just said is how I feel about arguments in the abstract, not necessarily the way you debate them. So
do what you like, be nice, have fun.

If you have any other questions ask me.




                                                              55
Palmbach, Andrew
I'll try to keep this succinct. Apologies if it seems like at times I'm insulting your intelligence - I am growing bitter in my
old age, after all. Experience: 3 years high school debate (culminating in one and a half or so years of varsity debate), and 2
years judging (this year is my second). I've judged in most every Wisconsin debate tournament this year so far, and most
last year. Out-of-state experience is pretty limited - the only such tournament I've judged at is Glenbrooks last year.
Restrictions: Appleton East Paradigm: I fancy myself a Tabula Rasa judge insofar as I'll listen to most any argument and I
rather frown upon putting constraints upon your speeches; this is your competitive activity, after all, and I say this as a
request that you run what you think are your best argumentative positions, and all I am is a referee. Until you give me a
set of reasons why I should vote otherwise for your beloved arguments, I'll default to a policymaker framework. Don't take
either of those statements as a license to get away with sloppy argumentation. As for speed, I'm going to paraphrase a
quote from a really good Wisco policy judge- speed is a tactic, nothing more. Don't expect me to pull through minute
blippy details from the 1NC to the 2NR (or from the 2AC to the 1AR) every time, unless you ask me to look at a card after
the round (though often I'll ask to look at a card or a few after the round if it's a big point of contention in the round). This
is especially true for T violations, Ks and other theory arguments. T Violations- They're fine, but if you really want me to
vote on it you should make it a central part of your strategy all the way through. DA- Try to keep em plausible, I <3 really
fundamental things like specific links and thorough well-warranted internal link stories. Same goes for advantages CP-
They're fine. I might even look favorably upon you if you have the courage to run one unconditionally. Even more so if you
go for it and a K and your K doesn't bite it. K- I am really close to saying to I won't listen to Ks, but I continue to allow
them out of the glimmer of hope it affords me that I'll hear reasoned academic discussion about deep philosophical issues.
Too often I think high school K arguments are essentially debate coaches blocking out their pet philosophies and using
their students as proxies for their ideological quibbles; the reason why I say that is often students don't seem to fully grasp
the philosophical content of their K and how it functions as a reason to vote down the Affs. I am of the conviction that
students should read a book or five about the philosophy they advocate before they run a K about it. I don't think most Ks
this year are really competitive with most Aff plans at all, and if you're going to want to win on a K you're going to want to
show me why it is. Many a K debate I've heard this year are just terrible for debate; usually it's just that the Neg runs some
block about how despair is a fundamental part of human nature or how men are evil and we need to reject the normative
framework from the 1AC and then the Aff horrifically mishandles it so then the Neg just blows it up in the block and I'm
lamenting the fact that I'll have to "send a message to the Tab room" that isn't "a pox upon both your houses" and a double
loss. If this sounds intimidating to you and you're doubting that I'll fall in love with your K, feel free to send me to the
bottom of your judge preferences list. If you think you've got what it takes... challenge accepted. Here are a few things
which I think of as "breaking the rules of debate": New arguments in the 2NC are stupid. Please use the time advantage
granted to you in the block to extend the arguments you made in the 1NC to the point where the 1AR gets a panic attack.
Please don't drop your plan text on the Aff. Also please read your solvency cards (which should be OMG AWESOME with
strong warrants if you want me to vote for you) in the 1AC. Pretty fundamental stuff but I've seen people not do this. Any
other questions? Just ask Cheers, Palmbach




                                                               56
Platt, Justice
Currently head coach at Nicolet High School (2009-present) Assistant coach NHS 2008, frequent policy judge since 2007,
LD judge prior, parli debater in college (very bad).

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. A block of
cards and blank assertion is not a good way to win these. Point me to specifically how the plan is an instantiation of the
thing you're critiquing, show me how the stuff the plan does should be an affront to my value system, tell me how my
ballot makes a difference, and the win is far more likely to come your way.

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.




                                                               57
Sailer, Phil
High School: Glenbrook South
Debated: 4 Years
College: University of Wisconsin at Madison

If you only have 5 seconds and you see my name on the pairing here is what you need to know. My bread and butter is the
politics DA and a counterplan but feel free to run anything. I am ok with speed and debate language but keep it to a
minimum. Overall I am very open to different arguments but especially in the world of Kritiks you need to explain how it
reacts with the case.

If you have more time:

I am open to really any type of argument although that does not mean I understand each type of argument the same. I was
a 2A in high school and ran a heg aff every aff round that I can remember so things like heg, politics, and PICs are things
that need little background information. However things like epistemology, discourse, and representations are things that,
although I debated a lot, you will need to further explain. That being said I think with any type of argument the best types
of debate are the ones where the negative team clearly presents a link to the case and how the impact interacts with the aff.
That being said I'll talk about the specific arguments.

Topicality-I have not judged any high school debates on this topic (High School Res 2010-2011) so it is going to be
imperative that you explain topicality. I would say I default to a competing interpretations paradigm but again that is
something that is usually debated in the round. I would say what you need to persuade me is what you need to persuade
90% of the other judges in the pool. A good case list, grounds, limits, all of that jazz. Make sure that if you are going for T
that you have the best definition for the round. Although I HATE little T args that are said for 5 seconds in the
constructives that turn into 5 minutes in the rebuttals don't drop them because if they develop and are throughly
explained I will pull the trigger.

Theory-Being a 2A I am probably more aff leaning on theory args but I rarely like to vote on theory. Obviously if it is your
only shot or the other team just messed up on it then go for it but you should be able to clearly tell me what the other team
did to put your team at a disadvantage or else there is no reason to vote on it. Also there is a tendency to break out 6 theory
args in one 2AC. Thats fine but just make sure I can get reason 3 as to why negative fiat is bad.

Counterplans- I went to GBS. I love counterplans and PICs. Make sure that there is a specific counterplan text throughout
the round. I don't want any trickery from either side on this issue. That being said the best debates are ones where the
negative is able to find the difference between the CP and Plan and exploit it and when the aff has a clearly developed
argument to defend that piece of the plan. CP theory is the same as theory above.

DA's-Regular DAs are good. Politics DA's are even better. Hopefully, however, there are some case specific DA's that you
all have cut because I find those to be the best. Again I have not judged on this topic so you are going to have to explain
anything that maybe I haven't heard before. Also in the last few rebuttals find out what you need to win on the DA. We
have all heard Magnitude, Probability, and Timeframe but if you are losing the link level of the debate the impact calculus
will get you no where. Obviously make some impact claims and extend it but don't feel like you have to just because you
sound cool. Win all the parts of the debate and you will probably win the round.

Kritiks-This is the argument that I am "least" fond of. I am not one of those judges that will reject you if you come up with
a different framework but your kritik is going to need to be explained more indepth then maybe a politics DA. That being
said, some of the most fun rounds I have seen or judged have been ones where the negative knows their K up and down
and the aff totally screws it up. Like with any other negative position tell me why I look to your "framework" first and why
the case links and why the impacts to your K matters. You do that and you are in good shape.

Speaker Points-I don't throw around 30's or 29.5's. You have to be really good. I think the average is a 28. Speaker points
are given based on a combination of presence, argument choice, politeness to your opponent, partner, and me, and finally
clarity. Do you best but don't force it and "go for what you're winnin" and you should be good.

Last tips before the round. Take the debate out of my hands. Literally. I don't want to have to read your cards and try and
teach myself about your aff because you failed to explain it. With any judge, you don't want to leave interpretation to them.
Force him or her to think about the argument in your way with your interpretation of the evidence. That way you and I will
not have to wait an hour for me to decide and we can all get food. Good Luck and Go Badgers.




                                                               58
Schultz, Ben
Experience: 4 years of high school debate at Marquette University High School; 5th years coaching and judging at the
high school level (2 at Brookfield Central and in 3rd at Marquette University High School). Currently the Assistant
Director of Debate at MUHS.

Overview: I'm a flow judge who believes that efficacy of anything proposed within the debate round should have to be
entirely proven or disproven within the round. The activity is about the clash of words and ideas put forth by the debaters,
and the ideas and evidence proposed is less important then the way it is argued. Put another way, I will vote for anything
brought up within the round, as long as it is well explained and clearly articulated. This doesn't mean that peppering the
flow with meaningless voters and 20 pointing theory and praying that the affirmative drops something will let you easily
pick up my ballot, but I do think it is freeing to the debaters in another way, because it means that my personal bias rarely
ever enters into the debate round. As for education, its less of a true goal of debate, then a useful side benefit. During the
1986 NBA season, the Boston Celtics rolled through the league en route to an NBA championship. During games where his
team was handily ahead, Larry Bird would practice post up moves, or driving using his left hand, or shooting three point
shots. The skills that came out of those games were useful in other places, but practicing those skills never came at the
expense of trying to win the games themselves.

DA's/CP's/K/T: Spoken about above, however I was less proficient at T as a debater, I find I vote on it often as a judge.
K's are rarely run well, so they might make you lose speaker points, but if you believe they can help you win the round,
more power to you. I will vote on them.

Theory: Like to vote on it, though I do find the argument "vote down the arg, not the team" persuasive.

Alternative Debate Styles: Stuff like hypo testing and performance are very interesting. DO NOT run this if you don't
normally run it to try and pick up my ballot (not sure how worried I should be about this, but there it is), however if you
believe you run it well and it is your main strategy, I'd love to hear it.

"Cheating": The only hard and fast rules of debate that I am aware of are time limitations on speechs and prep, and what
speech happens when. Everything else is fair game, and I don't adhere to the philosophy that running consult
counterplans or sandbagging the 1AR make you less of a debater. As an addendum to the theory note above, I default to a
competing interpretations view of theory (much like on topicality), though I can be pursued to change that. Fairness is
then not an independent voting issue, but a standard to prove that your interpretation of the rules of debate is the best. In
summary, if you are prepared to defend your interpretation of debate, cheat away.




                                                             59
Schultz, Tyler
Constrained Against: Cedarburg

Debate Experience: I debated for Cedarburg for four years. I now coach Cedarburg's policy team.

CX: Open

Prep: 8 min.

Speed: I like fast, technical debates as long as I can understand you and you slow down a bit for tags and theory blocks.
Organization is critical if you want to get good speaker points from me.

Depth vs. Breadth: I prefer debates where both sides have a few, well-developled arguments and stable advocacies. No
perf con please.

Topicality: I'm open to T if you can prove in-round abuse. I won't vote on potential abuse.

Counter Plans: Obviously, CPs aren't allowed in novice. If I should end up in the varsity pool, I'd be more than happy to
vote for a CP if it is seriously pursued as a negative's primary advocacy. As for CP theory, it needs to be clearly articulated
(ie not a string of debate buzzwords) and impacted. As with T, you need to prove in-round abuse if you want to win on CP
theory. I prefer unconditional or dispositional CPs rather than conditional CPs.

Kritiks: Obviously, Ks are not allowed in novice. If I should end up in the varsity pool, I'd be more than happy to vote for
the K if it is seriously pursued (ie one off). I have a soft spot for rhetoric Ks. I want you to clearly explain the role of the
ballot and to articulate complex philosophical ideas in a way that is consistent with the intent of the author of that
evidence.

Theory: I feel the same way about theory as I do about T. If you can't prove abuse and aren't going to seriously pursue it,
don't bother.




                                                               60
Sisco, Sara
I am a Ripon College Forensic team member. I compete in Extemporaneous speaking along with informative and
communication analysis. I debated varsity policy debate in California for 3 years from 2004-2007. During my high school
debate years, the teams and coaches at both Dartmouth and Berkeley coached me. I have judged varsity policy debate on
the California circuit.
I do not see a problem with speed during the debate however if I cannot understand the words coming out then I can not
flow the argument.
Cross-ex is vital, if you can ask the right questions then you can provide the right answers in a later argument.
There amount of arguments presented is up to you, make sure each of the arguments is well developed and you have the
evidence to back it up. I would not follow an argument that is not backed by clear and defined evidence.
Make a good Topicality argument and I will accept, if it‘s a space filler, its not a good argument.
Counter plans are good, if it is argued that this is better than the current plan then ok, but a generic counter plan that is
adapted to every case is easy to spot.
If you are going to run a kritik, make sure you understand the material. There should not be a K run that is only
understood by one of the team member, both should be able to argue it and be asked questions about it.
As a whole I place a lot of emphasis on the clear clash in the round, please do not be to ships passing in the round, actually
argue against each other. The team that takes on the other teams argument in the clearest most precise manner will be
much more successful than the one that runs the arguments that they were told to run.


I have little experience with LD, as I debated policy in high shcooll, but I have judged novice LD before.
Please prove your case, persuade me why you are either in support or in negation of the resolution.
I do not like arguments that take us in ciricles that will eventually prove a point. Both side have the weight of proving why
they are right. Use the values that you have argued and make a clear and true clash between you and your opponent.
In the end if you prove you case better than the other side you have my vote. But make sure all your claims are backed up
and have a point.




                                                              61
Trilling, Noah
Background
I did policy debate from 03-07 (Oceans-Service) at Sheboygan North High School in Sheboygan, WI. In 07-08 (Africa) I
was an assistant coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI under head coach Bill Batterman. In 08-09
(Energy) I was the head coach of Brookfield Central High School in Brookfield, WI. In 09-10 (Poverty) I plan to judge
frequently at National and Regional Tournaments. I am a junior at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee studying
Sociology and Political Science.

Policy Paradigm

Overview
Paradigm-Tabula Rasa: I‘m an open-minded critic but, like everyone, I have certain argument preferences. Don‘t let
my personal argument preferences alter your strategy, however. You should run arguments based on your pretournament
preparations and the arguments you hear in the debate. The arguments that you feel most comfortable with and believe
are appropriate for the round will be your best arguments. I‘d rather hear arguments you‘re familiar with than have you
alter your strategy and not know the evidence. I will evaluate all arguments presented in the debate and attempt to
minimize judge intervention (to things like mischaracterizing evidence, cheating, etc).

Delivery-Fast: This will be my seventh year involved in Varsity Policy Debate so speed isn‘t an issue. Expanding on your
best arguments, avoiding blippy tag-line extensions, and slowing down on theory and topicality will help you win debates
by improving the clarity of your warrants and the clarity of your speech. Out carding and out tech-ing a team is not the
surest way to victory. Narrowing the focus of the debate and sitting on arguments of significance does a great deal to
improve the clarity of your message.

Evidence Quality: Researching high quality evidence, explaining warrants effectively, and executing case-specific
strategies IS the surest way to win in front of me. At the end of the debate I almost always call for evidence. If you are
overstating the quality of your evidence or mischaracterizing its claims I might simply disregard it entirely. You are
absolutely responsible for providing truthful evidence from qualified sources that accurately represents the nature and
scope of your claims.

How to Win
Topicality: I find reasonability claims a bit illogical and unfair in the same way that I find ―Counterinterpretation: Only
our case is topical‖ illogical and unpredictable. Although competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, the
affirmative still has the burden of providing a reasonable, predictable interpretation that includes the affirmative. Instead
of making vague claims about reasonability, invest time in how your counterinterpretation is grounded in a literature base,
preserves core affirmative cases or preserves negative counterplan, kritik and disadvantage ground.

That being said, I don‘t like voting on topicality. I‘d much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than deal with
absurd distinctions on the definition of increase or substantial that have no effect on the division of ground. Negatives
need to spend a substantial amount of time in the block and the 2NR explaining the significance of the violation in terms
of specific ground and education losses.

Theory: I am growing increasingly disturbed by the proliferation of blatantly non-competitive plan-inclusive
counterplans designed to conform to generic disadvantages (spending, politics, etc). Negatives need to be more creative,
plan case-specific strategies and cut advantage counterplans instead of avoiding debating the case.

However, like topicality, I would much rather resolve substantive issues about the plan than vote on cheap shot theory
arguments. PICs are one of the few theory arguments I have strong feelings about. I also typically find theory as a reason
to reject an argument, not the team. Especially with PICs though winning theory can be a significant blow to the 2NR‘s
impact calculus.

Kritiks: Kritiks are excellent when they are executed properly. However, it is important that you are able to explain the
significance of your impact, especially if it is operating outside the traditional utilitarian/policymaking framework. You
also need to explain how the alternative functions to overcome the status quo and solve the 1AC.

Many teams have difficulty answering kritiks and I don‘t understand why. Kritik alternatives tend to greatly overstate the
impact of their adoption. Its important for affirmative teams to highlight the specificity of 1AC solvency evidence to create
solvency deficits to the alternative. Instead of allowing kritik hacks to dominate the internal link debates, remind me of the
practicality of the affirmative and its ability to create incremental positive change.

Counterplans: Counterplans need to be functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. As I noted above, I am

                                                             62
not a big fan of a lot of Generic PICs. Most generic PICs cede too much of the solvency and impact debate to the
affirmative. At the same time, PICs rarely capture the intent and the specificity of the 1AC cards, leaving the negatives with
a solvency deficit. Instead of running generic PICs to capture 1AC solvency evidence, run advantage counterplans or case
specific PICs with specific solvency evidence, internal net-benefits, case-specific disadvantages and impact turns on case.

Disadvantages/Case: I generally file all globally cataclysmic events (environmental collapse, nuclear war, extinction,
etc) in the same category of terrible fates. To win you should emphasize probability in impact analysis. Having high quality
evidence and extrapolating their warrants will go a long way to convince me of the probability of your impact scenarios.
Focusing on smaller impact scenarios is a great way to distinguish your plan from the solvency claims in PICs, big
disadvantages, and kritik impact turns and alternatives.

Speaker Point
30/29.5-Perfect/Excellent: A perfect or nearly perfect performance.

29/28.5-Above Average: A good performance that combines technicality, strategic execution, and impressive evidence
quality. These speakers should be in contention to break and receive a speaker award.

28/27.5-Average: This indicates an average performance. I would give these to a team with sufficient technical skills and
execution to win the debate, but perhaps not in contention to clear or win a speaker award.

27/26.5-Below Average: This indicates a poor performance such as a major strategic error or technical error that had
an effect on the outcome of the debate. These will usually be given to a losing team that struggled throughout the entire
debate or a debater who made an especially serious strategic error.




                                                             63
Watson, David
Background: 11th year in the activity. I debated at Appleton West High School 2000-2004. I have coached at Minneapolis
North, Blake, and at Appleton West. In the last seven years I have judged approximately 350 rounds, or about 50 a year.

I have some overarching tendencies which are separate from my opinions about specific issues.
1. I am much more persuaded by the thesis level explanation of an argument than I am by a debater‘s mastery of the line
by line. I like when people explain things to me in the broad sense. This isn‘t to say that you can ignore the line by line, but
overviews are your friends when I am your judge.
2. Dropped arguments aren‘t true if they are stupid. I generally assume the other team thought, as I did, that these
arguments were a waste of everyone‘s time.
Topicality/Theory: I am what they used to call a hypo tester. I believe that the plan is an apparatus to test the validity of a
hypothesis, the resolution. As such I evaluate topicality in a jurisdictional paradigm, as opposed to an abuse one. That
means grammar, extra, effects, and bright line standards are your friends and predictability/ground based standards are
not. Take notice, if I don‘t find abuse a reason that a plan is not topical I will certainly not be persuaded by potential abuse.
This carries over to most theory debates as well. I am much less concerned with if you are abused, than if there is a
reciprocity/side burden question in dispute.
CP theory: Agent and Procedural CPs, and any other CP that tests the desirability of the plan as presented in its text, are
fine with me. Given what I have said about theory above I am hoping that it will prompt you to address conditionality
within that framework. I could be persuaded to reject multiple conditional cps on the ground that they create a failure in
argumentative reciprocity more easily than I would be persuaded that ―it is a strat skew‖. The difference may seem
semantic, but is actually a significant one (are abuse arguments ever falsifiable?).
K: I want a real alternative. That means a CP that doesn‘t link to the K, or a new epistemological system with a coherent
alternative text. Rejection of the aff doesn‘t generate uniqueness for any epistemological system that I know of. If you say
that it does, I will say you are a liar.

Sidenote, I hate the politics disad. It is intrinsic, in most cases, but it is still usually stupid.




                                                                  64
Wunderlich, Carly
Background: I am a graduate of MSU and debated at Brookfield Central in High School. I worked at the SDI this summer
for four weeks and judged at New Trier and U of M.

As with most people, take my philosophy with a grain of salt because I can be persuaded that these things are not the case
but these are my general defaults.
Meta Thoughts:

  1. A dropped argument that is stupid is not ―true‖ and therefore a slayer but I would consider myself primarily flow and
tech oriented
  2. I think hard work should be the model for debate and specific strategies are encouraged (as well as good evidence)


CP Theory: I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, dispo, states) and think that you should
reject the argument not the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are
competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. As
a side note, it‘s debatable but I think if a CP links to a DA 99% and the case 100% it‘s probably not a net benefit just
because of the 1% link differential.
-->Conditionality- this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg
should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans.
It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a
better job of protecting the aff in this department because multiple counterplans make it strategic suicide for the aff to
make their best answers and forecloses a real search for the "best policy option." Along this vein, unless the neg explicitly
says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

T: I think that reasonability is good for the aff. I think good ground is good enough ground and sometimes debate should
be a little hard for the neg. Most things that seem to be too broad should be housed with the aff and not the neg. I think we
should bear in mind that we craft broad topics to allow some aff flexibility

Kritiks: I think that debate should be a model for education (and as such we as a community need to determine the
"curriculum" that is best) and for representation and language Ks they often run from topic specific education. Topic
specific Ks that turn and/or solve ALL parts of the aff are better. I grant the aff a lot of leeway on ―K doesn‘t remedy ―x‖
advantage and that outweighs‖ if the neg is not good and explicit about it. I also grant the aff a lot of leeway about why
short term extinction claims should come before questions of the K structural impacts.

Framework: As I said above I think that many Ks dodge topic education but in most cases I think almost all frameworks
are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages. There is almost nothing
that annoys me more than bad framework debates. If you do not defend that the hypothetical enactment of your plan by
the USFG is a good idea, I am not a good judge for you. We change topics for a reason and I think that "curriculum" I'd like
to "teach" in rounds is about policies that the USFG should enact.

Any other (specific) questions…just ask and I‘ll be happy to answer




                                                              65

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:6
posted:7/7/2011
language:English
pages:65