I have 4 years of British Parliamentary debate experience in college, and 4 years of PF experience in high school prior to that. I've participated in other formats such as APDA and NPDA as well.

I prefer a few fleshed out, convincing, well-warranted arguments to a great number of surface-level arguments. I don't like spreading, if you are going to spread, make sure to sign post extremely well.

I believe debate should have educational value and real world impact. Please refrain from using terminal impacts such as extinction when debating topics that are not likely to have extinction as a real world impact, as this heavily diminishes the educational value of a debate round.

When discussing issues that impact real people, please do not reduce people down to concepts/numbers. Do not make generalization about groups of people, even if you think you are making a positive generalization. Be careful when building your arguments on what you perceive to be universal beliefs/values. i.e. if you are planning to win the debate round on positive impacts brought to US citizens, you should explain to me why US citizens should be the most important group of people in consideration, especially if the resolution clearly calls for a more global impact.

Please respect other debaters. Do not speak in derogatory ways regarding your opponents. Do not instigate any personal attacks onto your opponents. Do not comment on your opponent's mannerism, attire or accent. Do not make any arguments/assumptions during your speech based on your opponent's identities. Remarks such as "Of course my opponent will argue xyz as a [insert identity group]" will absolutely receive equity violation.

I will not bring my personal political biases into judging. Arguments from across the political spectrums will be well considered.

Hello, my name is Brian Epley. I am a new judge. I participated in debate about thirty years ago. So while I have experience it is distant in my mind. Please speak at a conversational pace, and I will do my best to listen quickly.

Most importantly I hope you have fun and enjoy this experience.

brian.epley@neenah.k12.wi.us

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.

Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am considered a true tabula rasa (blank slate) judge. I have coached debate for 6 years in two different districts, and debated throughout my high school and college career. I allow any argument to be made, and will vote on any argument that convinces me on why that team should win.

I don’t have any preferences to speed or types of arguments, but if you make an argument, please understand the argument you are making. For this reason, I dislike Topicality since many debaters use it as a time-suck with no real violation or strategy. I allow, and sometimes enjoy, debate theory, and encourage young debaters to educate themselves on such.

Ultimately, I tend to suppress any preconceived ideas and biases I have during a round, so feel free to run anything. Whichever arguments stand at the end of the round wins!

Carpe Diem!

Email: chiefofstaff@iPresidentoftheunitedstates.com

Debated during the Mesozoic Era, otherwise known as the Dinosaur period.  1979-1982 at the University of Denver.  Our debate/forensics team was nationally ranked back in the day.  I participated in all the debate events our school registered for, some required traveling to west coast/east coast. 

Will give solid points for understanding and thus presenting the arguments versus cut and paste.  The person winning the debate is the one that can persuade me they have identified the problem and have the solution.  During rebuttal, all contentions should be rebutted and not ignored.  If one side has 3 contentions and only 2 are rebutted, then it is assumed you table that 1 argument giving advantage to the opposing side.  Solid cross examination allows me to flow your understanding of the key elements of the opposing sides presentation.  Use your time wisely and if you are nervous, slow it down, and look me in the eyes versus reading a script.  Pause, breath, and consider what you are saying.  Remember, everything you say is important.  Show me you understand the resolution entirely and whether affirmative or negative, you can present an argument that indicates you have fully grasped the issue.

If you present your case in a fast read aspect where you are trying to read as quickly as you can possibly read, and expect me as a judge to flow everything based on your speed, it will not gain any advantages with me.  You as a debater have sufficient time to speak normally and outline your aff/neg argument based on the facts and philosophies relating to the resolution.  Be persuasive. This is a debate.  This is an opportunity to use your argumentative skills to challenge conventional thoughts toward why the resolution should be affirmed or not affirmed.  Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln did not speed read in their debate.  History points out that both were exceptional in how they argued their positions.  These resolutions are wide in their interpretations and your job as a debater is to look at the roadmap that convinces me you should win.  Values, criteria, etc are all relevant and should not be ignored.

My Judge Skills:  Used my debate experience in the Federal Courts as a pro-se litigant to protect my intellectual properties and am renown via my case winning of 56-0, protecting marks Zoo Mania, Funky Monkeys, iVote, iPresident, ZOO, etc.  One such case was reported in the Federal Supplement case law in 2012 for future cases, Rice v. Petedge.  The issue was decided by the Chief Justice of the 11th Circuit in my favor to decide how jurisdiction could be determined with the advent of cross border usage of a registered mark. Previously, jurisdiction was based on where sales originated, now websites selling via a domain have thus changed the rules of the game.  My case opened the door to new understanding of the law and was debated with the opposing side represented by one of the oldest most elite law firms in the US, McCarter & English. As with debate, my presentation was more persuasive and using the facts, won. 

Have used flow charts with attention to details and the back and forth of how a debater presents their case, the cross examination, and the rebuttal. Good luck to each debater.  

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com

Background

Hey there, I'm Jack (He/Him). I was a PF debater for 4 years and did Congressional Debate for 3 years; I competed in local and nat circuit so I will generally know what you are talking about. I have judged PF, LD, And Congress locally and nat circuit.

*Online Debate*

For any online tournaments this year (if we have any) we all have tech issues so if you/your opponent drops out from the call please be respectful as we wait for them to rejoin. Please make sure to have hard copies of at least your constructive, cards if possible, it saves a lot of time if internet goes out.

Also, please be mindful of your speed/clarity online. Audio quality over the computer is not always the greatest. I won't stop you but if I can't understand you, I won't flow it.

All Debate

I don't often pick up extinction level impacts, if you are running them please have a clear and strong link chain from event A to extinction otherwise none of it will end up on my flow.

I do not flow CX, I am listening to it but it is a place for you to question and receive answers, not make arguements. If your opponent makes a concession in CX and you want it flowed, you must tell me.

I will more than likely know what you are talking about but present it to me as if I don't. Your debates should be able to boil down to arguements that can easily be understood by a parent judge or someone of the general public. It is not a major voting factor of mine but clarity in arguements and good voters will aid my decision and help your speaks.

Speaker Points: Some judges like them, some do not. I treat them as if everyone starts at 30 points and get detracted for things like clarity, decorum, full use of speech times, etc. Keep in mind that they are not a major factor in the decision and only truly matter for tiebreakers AND they are subjective. Overall, I aire on the high side of speaker points and rarely award less than a 27.5.

PF

I am ok with speed but if it sounds like you can't breathe that's bad (air is good for you) and I probably won't understand you.

I like frameworks and framework debates but I won't be mad if you don't have one. If you do propose one, I weigh Framework and FW clash very highly in the round. If you don't, I assume a CBA

In your constructive, if you have any overly complicated theory or extensive link chains, please take the time to explain them. If you just spew cards at me or tell me a theory without reasoning, I don't have a reason to flow it

Summary and FF: I know everyone says it but weighing and voters!! Don't just give me cards and say your world was better, please tell me why I should prefer your card over theirs and specifically how the outcome is better in your world. In FF make sure to recap all of your partners summary points and don't spend the majority of your time attacking your opponents. Voters, Voters, Voters, breakdown exactly what you want me to vote on for the round.

LD

I expect that both debaters have a clearly laid out value and that there is good clash on which value hold higher priority.

LD is NOT Policy. Depending on your circuit Plans/Counter plans may or may not be allowed, if they are allowed I will take them into consideration (same as running K's, spreading, other policy types) but I'm not very fond of it. Your arguments should be based in value debates, not spreading out your competitors or running CPs when there is no plan in the first place. Please keep LD as "LD" as possible.

As in PF, I will not automatically flow CX, if something comes up you want flowed, tell me.

If you don't provide enough analysis, you can't expect your opponent to respond to it and neither can I. Make sure your ideas and evidence are fully explained and the links are clear.

Again if you spread me out or run things so progressive, I am probably not picking you up. I will say Speed one time if I am having trouble understanding you. If I can not understand beyond that, I will stop flowing.

Something new to me: Ideas on disclosure. I think it kind of ruins the spirit of debate, it allows you to everything on the line-by-line prepped out, and can spread 7 pages to me with no real meaning behind it (for me). I of course understand that disclosure is now common practice but if you are running T-shells on disclosure/contact disclosure you are going to be immediatly dropped by me; I find it abusive and against the spirit of the event.

At the end, tell me why you win the round, what are your voters? Make it clear to me what I am voting on.

Policy

If I am your policy judge there has been a grave mistake and/or there was no other choice. In this scenario I am no different than a parent judge who has never watched a round before and I wish all of us the best of luck. I'm sorry :)

Congress

Having multiple speeches is of course important. With that said, I would much rather have you give me 1/2 really good speeches that add something to the debate rather than repeating what has been said 3 times just to get an extra speech in. Please don't give me fluff just so you are on my ballot more than your fellow Congress people.

Don't be afraid to give an opposing speech when no one else will, I'm not expecting it to be perfect but I would love to see someone step up and put new arguements in place than hear "although the chair frowns on a one sided debate" 6 times in a session.

Overall have fun though, its one of the most "free" and open for interpretation events in my opinion and the bills can lead to some very interesting discourse. Keep it respectful and structure your arguements well but feel free to have some "way-out-there" links and arguements.

I am a PF debater and Debate judge by heart so I would like to see some type of weighing or world analysis past authorship/first negation; it shows me that you as a Congress person are analysing the bill and debate, not just throwing a speech at me with no relevance to anything previously said.

Other Important Things

1) Don't be rude. To your opponent, partner, or me. I won't stand for any yelling or disrespect to each other. If you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc I can guarantee you that you will not be winning the round.

2) I will time your speeches but please try and keep your own time, especially for CX. If you would like me to time anything for you and/or give time call outs/signals I will, but for the most part I do not want to intervene.

3)Don't commit evidence violations. I know that's kinda how debate is supposed to work but it's a long process that neither I nor you want to deal with so lets be smart please. With that said if your opponent does commit an evidence violation, don't be afraid to call it out. We all want things to be fair.

4) I will disclose after rounds anytime I am allowed to. I default to a brief Oral FRD with in-depth personal comments on the ballet. If you would like more explanation as to my decision in-round (time permitting), I am okay with post-rounding but please be respectful and brief if you choose to do so.

5) Have fun! Yes, debate is primarily a serious event but a little humor can break up the rounds and is appreciated.

If you have any questions/comments/concerns feel free to reach out. If you want to include me in any email chains, cool. If not that's okay too. If you ask me before round what my preferences are, I will briefly explain but be sad that you did not read my paradigm :(

email: jdsteele@uwm.edu

Good Luck and Have Fun!

My name is Avi (pronounced "Av-EE") Stern

My email is avistern65@gmail.com.

While I did not participate in debate, I had two sons who were active in both debate & forensics. I have a limited understanding of debate jargon, so please make sure you are speaking to me.

I've had a long career in both journalism and public affairs, so evidence and solid reasoning -- not volume -- matter the most to me. Use facts, supported by conversational rhetoric, to convince me to vote for your side.

Err on the side of CLARITY. Connect the dots on the evidence path you are laying out for me.

Do not spread, its hard for me to follow.

I am all for spirited competition, but sportsmanship & mutual respect matter. Be polite, please.

Seize the moment. Enjoy yourself. And let's make it a positive experience for everyone.