I am a debate coach who has judged all types of debate for nearly 30 years. In recent years, I have focused mainly on public forum and occasionally Lincoln Douglas.

When judging public forum, I adopt the point of view of someone who is conversant in basic terminology and concepts but without any preconceived opinions on the merits of the resolution. The team that is more effective in using evidence and argumentation to convince me that their side should prevail gets the win.

I value clarity and precision in argumentation. While I can flow and comprehend more rapid delivery (I have coached policy), I think that public forum is not well suited to speed. If you are speaking rapidly because there is a lot you really need to cover, I am ok with that. If you are speaking rapidly because you feel it will confuse the other team, I will be annoyed. If you are speaking rapidly because you think it will impress me, it will not.

Since time is so limited, keep it simple and straightforward. Direct refutation, line by line responses and precise attacks are easiest for me to weigh, so why not do that?

The summary is an important speech because it tells me how your side sees the entire round now that constructives and rebuttals are on the flow. The final focus is best spent weighing the round and telling me why your side prevails.

Crossfires are not speeches, so anything from a crossfire that you want on the flow must still be mentioned in a subsequent speech. However, I listen carefully to all crossfires, so I will be aware of whether their contents are being accurately characterized.

In Lincoln-Douglas, I prefer clarity and quality over speed and quantity. I appreciate direct refutation and line by line analysis. My preference is for a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of the resolution. If given a choice, I would like a round that had fewer but better arguments rather than a spread of arguments that all lack decent development.

I do value the traditional role of LD as the more philosophical type of debate, and the value and value criterion play a unique and helpful role in this. However, I am mindful of the fact that not all resolutions lend themselves to this tradition as well as others do, so I am ok with making adjustments accordingly. If I don't feel I've been given clear reasons why I should vote the way you want me to, I will tend to default to a traditional approach, so having the value and value criterion in place still serves a purpose.

Evidence is important in LD to back up your basic claims, but I'd rather have you give me a couple great cards along with excellent analysis then many cards without it.

In your last speech, please make it very clear to me why I should be convinced by what is on the flow to vote for your side.

I look forward to hearing you debate!

School: Stevens Point Area Senior High (WI)

Experience: I've got three years of high school debate experience, I'm the assistant coach of the SPASH debate team, and this is my second year judging.

I'm a tabs judge but I have a few preferences:

T: I'll always look to competing interpretations, and you should throughly explain your standards/voters. In round abuse will be more persuasive
Kritiks: I'll default to a policy framework if none is presented, so I guess I'm a little biased against Kritiks but if you win the framework flow I'm down. Also I have probably a higher standard for alt solvency.

Impact calc/ framing the round is key. In the end I'll vote on anything, but you need to tell my why I'm signing my ballot.

email me at dgord325@uwsp.edu if you have any questions

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n 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 used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

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 am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

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, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

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 and 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 how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

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 bizarre 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, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

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. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

LD Paradigm: You won't see nearly as much LD judging on my record, but I've done it. Judged our state finals in LD a few years back. My notes on PF and Policy may be informative, but I understand the differences here. Very big overview, I'm fine with Ks but make sure you have the time and the ability to cleanly and clearly explain them. Do not speed. The V/VC debate can get very technical - a list of blippy answers will carry far less weight than a few well-thought out answers. The Aff certainly doesn't have to have a plan, but you WILL have to paint an idea of how the world of the Aff might look. I feel it may be rare now for judges to be willing to vote neg on solvency alone, but I'm happy to do it if the evidence is strong.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions 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 actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

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

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly 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. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.