In terms of congress, I am looking for representatives who are looking to use legislation to make real changes and make them with the idea of constituents in mind, not just speaker points. Also, quality presentation and respectful CX. 

My background: I debated policy for 3 years at Sheboygan South. I judged policy, LD, and PF debate a little bit in college and at a few tournaments since. Now, I coach forensics at Sheboygan North. I have a degree in finance and economics. I work at an insurance company as a business analyst.

I don't mind speed, as long as I can understand you. If I can't understand you, I will give some sort of cue. If you are speaking fast, it should be strategic and not for the sake of speaking quickly.

I'm a fairly open minded judge. Tell me how to vote. I feel that debate is an important activity and has real world applications, so I will default to weighing the impacts as they would be in the real world if no one tells me otherwise. I prefer for debaters to do what they are best at. I'd much rather listen to and vote for an argument that I dislike if it's run well than listen to an argument I like run poorly. If I can't understand your argument, it won't be on my flow and I can't vote for it. Please clearly explain your arguments. Clash is good. Therefore, I don't have much to say about specific arguments here. I'd prefer to be asked specific questions before the round. Seriously, ask me questions.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

traasatae@yahoo.com

I am a retired debate coach (also coached speech and theatre), who for over 25 years coached Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and once it became a debate event Public Forum debate. It can be assumed that simply due to my longevity that I am just a dinosaur judge… but I do not think that completely articulates the type of judge that you will have in the back of this round.

My first premise is to always attempt be a tabula rasa adjudicator, given the constraints of sound debate theory. That being said, I will not be drawn into some absurd games-playing paradigm by debaters attempting to belittle the educational expectations of this academic activity. Bottom line – I believe this is still the best activity any student can be involved in to best prepare themselves to be a better citizen.

Public Forum – I still feel that this style of debate should be accessible to anyone and everyone. Thus, I would expect it to be understandable, organized and cordial. Also, I feel it should be free of what I call blip arguments. (ex. I despise one-word framework blips like “Framework – Util”) I am sorry, but if you want me to specifically exercise my decision process through a specific framework – you certainly need to define and develop that concept. I also believe Public Forum debaters and the debate itself benefit from good ethos. So, what am I looking for in a good round of PF? Sound argument(s), clash, good refutation and solid summation. In the end, if there are good standing impacts on both sides of the debate – I expect the final focuses do a thorough impact calculus. (Don’t make me do the work, that is your responsibility as a debater, not mine as the judge.) Do not be afraid to ask me questions before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.

Lincoln Douglas – I have always loved value-based debates! That being said, I am not sure that LD is still this type of debate. So, understand that when I become grumpy when an LD round turns into a policy debate – I am not grumpy with you the debaters, but more so the direction that this high-speed vehicle is headed. (Believe it or not, back when this style of debate was introduced, it also was meant to be an accessible style of academic debate for the public.) More than anything else, I dislike the incorporation of policy debate language, but not necessarily defined the same in LD. I am often still shocked with plantext in LD, specifically when the resolution does not specifically demand or require action. I do understand that over these decades LD resolutions have moved to more policy-oriented proposals but bear with this old man and understand that I still appreciate weighing an LD round through value-premise based arguments. Additionally, I have always felt that most legitimate arguments in LD are critical at their fundamental level, thus I am often unsure how a “K” is to be weighed in the round but do expect to be informed by the debaters. (once more, I expect the debaters to do the work, not to leave it to me) Again, do not be afraid to ask me questions before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.

- At this point, let me explain… I think the greatest sin that a judge can commit is to intervene. As a judge, I will keep a thorough flowchart, and will make my decision based on what is on my flow. If it is not on my flow, that is not my fault. I will not do the work for you. I NEVER flow CX or crossfire. If you want it on my flow, it better be in a speech proper. As far as rate of delivery, I believe that as long as you are understandable, I will be able to follow you. If I find you incomprehensible, I will tell you so (oftentimes in the form of vocally shouting “clearer”), but if I have to do that, you can bet that you are losing ethos points on my flow. My non-verbal language is pretty loud and clear, thus making sure that I am following your logic or argumentation is still your part of this communication process. Therefore, keep an eye on me, and you should be able to tell that I am following you. I find it silly when debaters tell me before they begin to speak – “I will now give you a non-timed roadmap” in Public Forum or LD. My PF and LD flows are on a single piece of paper… I have always equated “roadmap” in debate with Policy debate and placing the 5 to 8 pages of the full flow in the correct order for the speech that I am about to hear. And then I still expected to be told when to move from one page of a flow to another. Thus – a roadmap in PF or LD, I would expect to take less than a couple of seconds and find it just silly that I need to be told that the roadmap is to be non-timed. (all 3 to 5 seconds of it.) I feel awkward and uncomfortable about the “additional tech time”. (Until organizations identify specific “tech time” to include into the round, I often feel it is still using someone’s prep time, and am uncomfortable just adding additional time to the round and making sure it is fully applicable to everyone involved.)

Policy - It has been a while since I have judged policy debate, and that time makes me feel inadequate to judge a good VCX round. But if the situation arises, I will do my best to be a quality judge. In policy world, I am much more a policymaker than stock judge. I appreciate theory and believe it can still be the mechanism to weigh all issues in a policy round. I am a bit of a purist, in the fact that I still expect anyone running a critical argument or a performative position, to be fully committed to that argument or position. (I WILL vote for a performative contradiction). Otherwise, making sure it is on my flow and that I understand the argument will go a long way to winning my ballot. I do not like reading evidence, that is not my job, if you require me to read the ev, you are not fully doing your job. Everything else… just ask me before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.