**Updated 11.02.20**

gmail: william.m.donovan@gmail.com

sensitive material: max.donovan@pm.me (this email is encrypted by proton mail)

please direct complaints to the former as I check it more often.

He/Him/His

TLDR: My opinion is one of many, and this round is just one of many. Treat them as such. Be kind, be open, and be willing to lose for what you believe in– you will have transcended this activity.

Head Coach Madison East High School. Competed in LD, PF, Extemp, and CX on the Colorado/National circuits for 4 yrs in high school. Also Congress.

Truth, kindness, forgiveness, and honesty over tech. It has never been appropriate to manipulate representations of people's lives as part of a game, but it is a practice that has become normalized in an activity that prioritizes winning over truth. If we are to overcome the deadly cynicism of our abundant society we are all responsible for taking radical steps toward treating our lives and those of others as very real. This ideology is central to who I am and it effects the way I interact with debate. Primarily in that I think each round is a real discussion and that I, as a human being and not a blank slate, am inherently a part of it. If you would like to advocate, inform, protest, perform, write, build a coalition, make friends, work on art, learn about government, develop policies, have a conversation, test your ideas against other debaters, etc., I would love to work with you and try to facilitate those projects. To address the elephant in the room– I have nothing against traditional policy discussions but I will not privilege them. I will be thinking about the round from a basis of reality– two debate teams and a judge in a room trying to figure out what to do in the world– unless you give me reason to abandon reality and embark on an illusion with you (there is always room for imagination, theory, and fabulation). If you are here to try and pick up ballots, you probably want to pref me very low, but I think discussions with those you disagree with are often the most fruitful, so maybe email me anyway.

As you might be able to tell, I have little reverence for the structures or constructs of the activity and believe many of them are unnecessary or actively harmful. Time yourselves (or don't), sit or stand, use your allotted time in CX/prep how you want to, but please be respectful of the other people in the discussion. I will only intervene if you are being abusive toward the other students, so if both teams agree to some altered format, please have at it. I think rigid adherence by judges and coaches to traditional structures shuts out student voices, so it is one of my projects not to give special treatment to familiar arguments or debate formats just because they have been accepted into the norm. Debate is a part of our reality though and I am not going to play dumb about shorthand or the history of arguments– there are often reasons certain arguments and formats are popular, but not all of those reasons are good. What is the role of the ballot? It buys us some time from tab to have a meaningful conversation. I will always try to have a good reason for voting, but that reason will not always follow standard course.

My dream rounds are relaxed, concise, and collaborative. This really just means please do your best to approach truth with the other team. Collaboration doesn't require agreement (and often requires criticism), but it does preclude hostility. I do not take kindly to deceit, grandstanding, interruption, or other forms of hostility as strategies. Power comes in solidarity so I am more impressed when abuse is resolved than when it is exploded. Alleging a theoretical violation shuts down productive conversation, but it is crucially important when other teams are acting in bad faith. If you're going to allege a theoretical violation (I include topicality in this category) please gut check the abuse first. When you argue theoretical violations as a strategy you cheapen those arguments for when actual abuse has occurred and shut down meaningful conversation. If you've decided an argument is actually abusive (as in– is a significant obstacle to your ability to participate in the discussion), please provide a comprehensive model of the debate round (e.g. role of ballot/role of judge, competing interpretations v. reasonability, drop the debater v. drop the argument) or I will default to my own standard of reasonability, and I do not think topicality or fairness are essential to a good debate round.

Please be open to admitting fault, apologizing, and to receiving apology when an abuse has been leveled against you. If the transgressor apologizes and changes their behavior I will be very reticent to vote on the abuse. Alternatively, if the abuse is minimized by the transgressor I believe that anger is a valid and righteous form of advocacy on behalf of the transgressed and will not hold it against you.

The cardinal sin as far as I am concerned is an inauthentic advocacy, especially in critiquing another team. Not only are you (k)riticizing the other team's behavior, you are doing so as an exploitative performance of outrage for personal gain. The contents of a K are often a dire call for change from a person who is being suffocated by existing power structures. When you exploit their words as a debate strategy you participate in an act of violent cynicism that takes power from their advocacy and contributes to their suffocation. Please, join a cause if it speaks to you, lift a voice if others need to hear it. I will always assume authentic intent (and I look very negatively on cynical arguments that seek to discredit the authenticity of another team's advocacy– @psychoanalysis). This is just a plea that you critically evaluate your own motivations and ask yourself whether you are contributing to an author's fight or if you are coopting their movement for a ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I have been made aware that my time as an LD debater makes me more amenable to post-modernist critique and psychoanalysis than most policy judges. I do not identify as a utilitarian, a humanist, or a neoliberal and I have spent enough time critiquing those ideas that I do not subconsciously default to them as a framework for evaluating impacts. If anything I lean toward an anarchic deontological model that prioritizes biological autonomy for individuals; political, social, cultural, and moral autonomy for communities; and temporary representative democracies for projects larger than that. I do not believe life has inherent value, but I do believe it has immense potential. Our souls, minds, and lives are not always ours to make or ours to lose, but when given the choice we should pursue life even at the cost of death.

I will talk to you for hours about your cases, my decisions, etc. so please reach out.

Question: Am I a bad judge?
Answer: Maybe? Probably. I'm either dumb or just slow.

Disclaimer: I have not judged since 2021. Go easy on me

Experience: I debated policy three years for Neenah High School (WI) and have been judging/coaching since 2016. I was an ok (subpar) debater with some nationals experience, but I was double 1s so evaluate that however you want. Most of my judging these days is LD but don't expect me to be an expert on the topic. I have judged maybe once this season.

Paradigm: Tabs. I'm good with speed, if I can't understand you I guess I'll say something. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. I am pretty good at following K proper flows. I can have a hard time with heavy theory debates. That being said, feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with.

In Round stuff: I really really really would prefer you to time your own speeches/prep/cross. I am very disorganized and absent-minded so I will probably forget to write down the prep usage or start speech times late if at all. Its also just good practice to be mindful of time in a round.

If its allowed at the tournament put me on the email chain.

Special Notes: You are responsible for the language that you use in the debate round; racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, or any other discriminatory speech will not be tolerated.

-Anything Else-

Feel free to ask me before a round. Chances are you know more than I do, I generally think I know what I'm talking about but I probably don't.

My email is isaacdorn@gmail.com

Email me if you have any questions about your ballot or my paradigm, I'm happy to reply!

-More Detail-

-Affirmatives-

Policy affs with a plantext: Go for it.

Plantext affs with K impacts: Go for it

Non Traditional Affs (advocacy, narratives, performance, kritikal, etc.): Go for it, but make sure to clearly extend case. Also I need a clear ROB so that I know what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

-Negatives-

DAs: Go for it.

CPs (Consult, Process, Agent, etc.): Go for it, make sure there is a clear net benefit. I tend to grant affs a bit more leeway when it comes to solvency as long as there isn't a competitive fiat debate. I also appreciate good explanations of the perm on both sides (i.e. whether there is functional severance, redundancy, works/doesn't work etc.). Some caveats; I have a history of defaulting affirmative on counterplans that I am unclear on or if the permutation debate seemed muddled to me (I am, however, beginning to shift my mindset on this towards tech>truth)

Ks (any kind): Go for it. Love em'. Like I said, I can keep up with K proper flows. Make sure your alt and link are clearly explained. While I like kritiks, I prefer for them to be educational rather than strategically ambiguous. Although I'm comfortable with my literature base, I will not do the conceptual work for you. You must adequately explain the content of your kritik.

T - Let me preface this by saying I have never voted on T. That being said, there are a few things you need to do to win a T debate in front of me. 1) Clear and present standards AND voters 2) In round abuse (which could be strategically planned) or a compelling reason for me to vote on potential abuse 3) Commitment in the 2NR, the argument is theoretically that you can't engage with a non-topical aff, if you spend half the 2NR with offense on the aff that makes your argument less compelling. IMO Topicality is a tool to keep affirmatives in check, I am much more Truth>Tech on the T flow.

-Theory-

Most of my squirreling on panels is usually because my understanding of theory. I didn't really get it as a debater, so most of my knowledge comes from my experience as a judge/coach/just thinking about it. I think my biggest problem with theory is that it is often presented as a series of quick one-liners that don't have a ton of substance. Seeing that I've never been great at flowing my preference is depth over breadth on theory.

(Update) I will not retract my previous statement, however I have developed my thought process some more. When you are engaged in a theory debate in front of me, make sure you have two things. 1) A sufficient claim that you meet your interpretation of debate better than your opponent. 2) Comparative offense calculus so that I as a judge understand why I should care about your interpretation of debate.

I will for sure vote for theory arguments in a debate, if I can understand them.

IN LD:

The WDCA requires that I add the following to my paradigm

Apply all of the above and...

Framework: Framework is an important aspect of your case and should not be neglected. Don't ignore offense on your FW.

V/VC: I don't need to see a Value/Value criterion in your case in order for me to vote for you. But you are responsible for making a cohesive argument as to why it is important for you to ignore this structure.

Plantexts: Go for it. I come from policy so honestly I would prefer a plantext.

CP: I think a CP is a fundamental part of your offensive toolkit on the negative and you should take advantage of this as much as you can.

Kritik: Kritiks are great. Don't expect me to do the legwork for you though, see above for specifics. Extend your evidence.

What I vote for in LD: Generally I will be voting for the team which understands their case more. Refer to my paradigm for what I like to see in a round.

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

PF Paradigm – I come from a policy debate background and until recently have been almost exclusively a policy judge. Due to this, I know that I tend to view rounds under a somewhat policy framework. What is the plan, what are the problems, and how does the plan solve these problems? I also understand that not every PF topic is going to fit nicely into this mold. To help mitigate this tendency I am looking primarily to the quality of argumentation in the round.

What does this mean for you?

· I am looking for a round where the debaters are clear and understandable, willing and able to give good arguments.

· I much prefer a single quality argument over 5-10 short arguments with no substance and I ultimately want the debaters to tell me why the world is better under their plan or side of the topic than the opposing team.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· Give me a reason to vote for you. Tell me what is important in the round and why it is important. If you don’t, I default to a utilitarian evaluation of the round.

· I am perfectly willing to listen if you have evidence that says a source is bad, but you need to have evidence. I’m not going to drop a card just because you don’t personally like an author. In addition, saying that a source is biased can be a decent attack, but you need to give me evidence that disproves the source in addition to this.

Ultimately, if you focus on good argumentation, you should do just fine in front of me.

Policy - I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the United States under the given resolution. In the round, you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.

Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking speed and that is fine given the time constraints in the round but there is no need to speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.

Topicality – This is something that I feel can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing it in the round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First, the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.

Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place where most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real-world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.

CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.

K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real-world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.

Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in the round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategic option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.

tl;dr for wisconsin tournaments i judge:

- i debated primarily on the nat circuit my junior and senior year, won a bid tournament, was in a bunch of bid rounds, etc, so i'm good with speed and i have a lot of experience with debate

• great judge for terminal impacts, IR, politics, and economics-focused arguments, impact turns, interesting counterplans, neg teams that go for substance against k affs.
• meh judge for topicality (unless it's egregious), kritiks, theory arguments, and soft left affs.
• bad judge for planless affs, "you use the state" links on kritiks, or kritiks that don't explain what their world looks like beyond "decolonization" or "ethics of care" or "we call for a socialist revolution", etc.

i will vote for all of the above arguments! but i do have the most experience with the top bullet point arguments, so you will need to do less work for me if you read those, which can help you in a close round,

UW madison '24

homestead '20

2n/1a

email chain: yes. jackwyp101@gmail.com

intro

debate isn't a game, it's a sport

i'm a senior at UW madison. i debated 3 years for homestead, being every speaker position. am i qualified to judge you? i won niles my senior year, regularly appeared in bid rounds, and won state twice, but my involvement in the HS topic is limited

don't call me judge. call me jack, or jack wyp, or wyp

i'm a policy-leaning tabs judge

i have deduced that death is indeed bad

i once read the lyrics to call me maybe as a counteradvocacy against a k aff

the kritik

despite my policy leanings, i love good k rounds where the negative doesn't go for framework and substantively engages in LBL. 2 things you must do to win my ballot:

1) explain. i want to know what the world looks like after the k, what debate looks like after the k, why the aff is worse than the squo, etc. if i'm confused, i'll most likely take the easier way out, which will result in an affirmative ballot.

2) prove the aff makes the world worse or the alt solves. i've seen far too many k rounds where the neg loses because they cant explain why the aff is bad besides "it isn't perfect" or "it doesn't solve this thing"; don't put yourself in that situation.

clash of civs

i lean neg on t-usfg, but i also hate debating these rounds. i love it when neg teams go for substance against these. if aff, have a creative c/i on fw and explain what the ballot does/means, at least by the 2ac.

disads

yay. ptix is fine. i follow politics very closely so i will likely know if you're lying/wrong about something. this also means if you have a smart, correct politics disad, i will like it quite a bit.

counterplans

yay. cheating counterplans are fun. cheating counterplans are also unfair. don't go for condo unless its dropped or if they read 3+ advocacies, otherwise i'll be very sad.

topicality

competing interpretations > reasonability

speaker point distribution - wisconsin only

29+ - you are fantastic and are one of the top speakers at this tournament

28-28.9 - you were a solid speaker. nothing too amazing happened but also nothing too bad. most of my speaks will fall in this range.

27-27.9 - you made some major mistakes which probably cost you the round. this includes things like dropping offcase, dropping perms, dropping theory, etc.

26.9 and below - you either said something really offensive, or you didn't even try and give a complete speech. ie you end speeches with 2 minutes left in it with a lot of args you could still make.

specific wisco debate stuff

- plz no more soft left affs on IR topics

- highlight cards, it saves so much time

- don't drop theory

- make sure you fill up all the time in your speeches. related - allocate time efficiently. your case overviews should be a few seconds max. you shouldn't take much prep for the 2ac

- F L O W

- framing "contentions" aren't particularly useful; you still have to beat the disad.

have fun, i truly mean it!

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".

I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.

2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments

3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively

Arguments

List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.

2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.

Other Notes

I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.

I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.