Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

I come to the debate with a clean slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion, the debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will affect society.

good debater speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well-used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

Hi - my paradigm is a work in progress.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I will be looking for cohesive reasoning. I prefer expanding on a few ideas over many ideas delivered quickly.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Good luck !

I have been judging PF for a little over two years now. I am a scientist at heart. So it should make sense that in order to evaluate your arguments I need to understand them. This is PF, not LD and that should mean something to you. I want to hear well-warranted arguments supported by evidence extended and explained in rebuttals.

You need to weigh with rationale and impacts. Everything in the final focus should be said in summary.

Be respectful to one another and to me. Be polite in the crossfire. You should learn something new in every round and remember to have fun.

As a side note, I am here to judge the resolution. I will not listen or judge side topics or arguments. Do not bring your own agenda into the round, specifically I am not judging your critique of debate theory.

Hello , I have judged several rounds and have a good understanding of debate theory and strategy.

When it comes to judging, I prioritize clarity, organization, and persuasion. I believe that a debater's job is to present a clear and convincing argument, and it's my job as a judge to evaluate how well they accomplish that goal. In my view, the most persuasive arguments are those that are backed up by evidence and logical reasoning, and that address the core issues of the debate.

I value fairness and respect in the debate community, and I expect all debaters to adhere to those principles as well. I also believe that the debaters should be civil and professional, both in their speeches and in their interactions with one another. Any instances of disrespectful behavior will be taken into account in my decision.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to all kinds of arguments, including policy, value, and fact-based arguments. However, I am not interested in hearing arguments that are discriminatory or disrespectful. I will not tolerate any form of hate speech or discriminatory remarks.

When it comes to evidence, I prefer quality over quantity. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that directly supports a debater's argument. Evidence that is taken out of context, misused, or irrelevant will not carry weight in my decision.

In terms of style, I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and poised. However, style alone will not win the round for a debater. Substance and sound argumentation are key.

Finally, I believe that every round is a learning experience, and I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek feedback after the round. I will do my best to provide constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to a fair and respectful debate. Good luck to all debaters!

please add me to the email chain - cwhaldebate@gmail.com
he/him
Order is policy, then PF

Do not trivialize, commodify, or deny the Holocaust.

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. If you are being recruited by or are committed to UNL, please conflict me!

I graduated from Patriot High School (VA) in 2022, having done WACFL PF for a year. Currently, I'm competing in NFA-LD (election reform, nukes) at the University of Nebraska. I usually judge as a hired gun of sorts for Ivy Bridge, as well as various schools on the Nebraska circuit.

Outside of debate I'm pursuing a Bachelors' of Science in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Agronomy. I'm also a tutor, a research assistant, and an intern with the state extension agency. I mainly research risk management (price volatility) and anti-trust policy (amongst other things).

Evidence sharing should not be complicated. I'm generally pro-disclosure. I don't care if you sit or stand during your speeches. I'm fine with observers so long as both debaters are.

My flow is generally pretty tight. I tend to prefer the line-by-line, and debaters who are able to stick to it tend to do better in front of me. Obviously like (almost) everything in this paradigm this is a default, so try to change it however you like. I am not persuaded by team clout, verbal abuse, or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside of debate and I have my dogs.

That said - if you have questions (about the round, my judging preferences, college apps, econ help...) - feel free to reach out!

I think about debate pretty similarly to (in no particular order) Ayyah Al-Jibouri, Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Adrienne Phillips, and Sarah Stevenson-Peck

Case debate - The best. I will almost never not vote for a solid 2NR case collapse, if you pull this off in front of me you will almost certainly get 30 speaker points no questions asked. I'm not entirely sure what a "risk of offense" even is and will readily pull the trigger on presumption if it's won.

DA/CP combo - Yes and yes. Run your cheater counterplans in front of me - almost anything goes so long as it's in the topic lit and you can do any additional justification. PICs are (almost) always good, consult/QPQ is fine on IR topics, and delay/miscellaneous conditions is illegitimate.

T v. Policy - Was my bread and butter during the elections topic. Using T to set up other off-case positions (either you're non-topical or you link to this DA, etc) is always a good time. I default to competing interps and don't need proven abuse.

Theory - I default to reject the arg, not the team in most instances. Most neg theory save for T/FW, test case (chef's kiss) and vagueness (my beloved), are probably frivolous. The only reject the team argument in terms of aff theory (save for condo) is probably object fiat. If you argument is best described as originating from circuit LD (cough cough three tier method cough cough), then I'm not the judge for you.

T-USFG - In a bloodbath, I wouldn't consider myself a hack - that said, I'm pretty receptive to the TVA. Do with that what you will.

K - If you know what you're doing, go for it.

Up my alley: Cap, Orientalism/Terror Talk, Militarism, Miscellaneous Ks of Economics (if you run Cybernetics and do it well I won't be able to shut up about it)
It's a wash: SetCol, Biopower, some Psychoanalysis (the nukes topic is wild)
Not my forté but I can follow: AB/Afropess, Fem IR, Queer Theory, most other arguments not listed (if you have specific questions ask)
Please don't: Heidigger, Agamben, Nietzche

PF specifics

1. For WACFL tournaments (this is important!!), the best case scenario is that I get approximately 5 minutes to make my decision before the tabroom starts busting down my door. Please be time efficient.
   
2. Only way to get a 30 is to share speechdocs with unparaphrased evidence (policy-style cards).
3. The line-by-line and keeping a tight (and clean) flow are your friend.
4. Tag team crossfire is welcome. I don't flow crossfire but I do pay attention during it; if in doubt, anything you say is binding.
5. I don't tend to jive with PF jargon (quantify, scope, de-link, terminal offense, etc).
6. First rebuttal should not extend their own case. Doing so guts any advantage you get from speaking first. On the flip side, second rebuttal is expected to attack and defend.
7. Please don't steal prep.