Evan Baines (he/they) 1/2022

please include me in email chains bainesevan1227@gmail.com

about me:

-judged high school policy debate at central high school from 2017-2021 on the topics of education, immigration reform, arms sales, and criminal justice reform.

-ran soft-left affs and k affs throughout most of hs. i am familiar with most k lit, but that doesn't mean you get to be lazy. please thoroughly explain your arguments on each flow.

general:

i am not picky about specific arguments. run what you're comfortable with and what you can win a debate with.

truth > tech. you will not win arguments such as "climate change isn't real" no matter how badly the other team drops that ball. i cannot in good faith endorse a such arguments, and i believe they are harmful to debate. that being said, you can still win that climate change doesn't cause extinction, etc.

i tend to default to the framing that debate is primarily an educational activity if no other framing arguments are read.

i like to see lots of clash on the flow! your evidence and warrants are vert important particularly on the solvency flow and disads

t:

i am not a huge fan of t arguments, but will certainly still vote for them. because i view debate as primarily an educational activity, the aff should tell me why even if their plan is untopical they should still be able to read it because of how it accesses education. the neg should be able to tell me why everything else in the round is moot because of the untopicality. if you would rather defer to a different framing on t by all means go ahead! i am not a fan of arguments like "the aff is untopical which is unfair because we weren't able to prep" particularly when y'all go on to read blocked out answers to their 2AC on the case.

k:

alt explanation and solvency is key to winning the k flow for me. if you don't have adequate solvency or explanation, i am left to a non-unique da to the case which makes it hard for me to vote on the k flow. i would still vote on presumption if the k impact and links are adequately explained.

in-round decorum:

please refrain from personal attacks on the other team, talking over each other, or other rude behavior. please remember that the people you are debating against are human beings and treat them with kindness and respect :)

Mya Colburn (she/her)

Please add me to the email chain: mcolburn555@gmail.com

My Background

- I debated policy at La Crosse Central High School from 2019-2023 (topics were arms sales, criminal justice, water policy, and NATO)

- I was mainly a Kritik debater, especially towards the end of my career. Because of this, I am familiar with the main idea of most national circuit Ks

- I am currently studying Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota Rochester

Arguments

- I am typically a Tabs judge, I will judge whatever you give me a good reason to judge. If you are going to run Topicality, Kritiks, etc give me a reason why I should vote for them.

- If you do not give me a clear reason to vote for a particular argument I will fall back on weighing impacts. Whichever team has the clearest and most realistic impact will win the round.

- I am generally tech>truth, but if you run a good truth>tech framing, I will evaluate the round as such.

- Do impact calculus and clash with the other teams arguments. Minimize how much work I have to do at the end of the round.

- I tend to be against topicality and other vague theory arguments. If you run them you should have a clear reason why this makes it nearly impossible for you to debate in this round.

- I am really looking for a solid rebuttal that lays out the arguments in this particular debate and shows me why I should vote for a particular side.

Other Notes

- I have done very minimal research on this years topic so make sure you are clearly outlining the inherency and links of your argument

- I am good with speed as long as the tags are clear and you read the text of the card without mumbling. If you are making an analytical argument you need to slow down and make it clearly (especially if it is not on the doc).

- I am okay with a open CX as long as the person whose CX it is and the person who is being CX'd do the majority of the talking. Partners can make a point or two and add ideas but if they are answering/asking every question I will start to lower speaks.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at tannercronce@gmail.com. This is also how you add me to the email chain. Let me know when you do it.

Please don't try to judge-adjust too much... this should serve more as a guideline to introduce yourself to me.

What am I good for?:

Good For:

--K Affs

--K on the negs

--DA-case debates

--Politics/elections debates

--T (If you feel you can argue this competently, do it, but most people don't)

--Anything, honestly... I am not a fan of conditionality for negs, though, unless it's just for one item.

--I will vote on disclosure theory

More In-Depth Background (Before Round Version After):

SQUO: I'm not going to pretend like I don't know anything about the status quo, so don't act or pretend like something is happening that isn't or vice versa. (e.g., If an opponent has a slightly dated card about a poll and you cross-ex and say, "Well, aren't these cards outdated?" and try to imply like there's been any radical difference between then and now in terms of poll numbers, I'm not going to care for that unless you have something crazy or radical to back it up that would be substantial to the debate. Don't cross-ex dumb questions.)

TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

SPEED: Go as fast as you want but Read LOUD and CLEAR. If you are mumbling through your evidence, I will not hear you...

I have an auditory disability that makes it hard to hear soft sounds. Clear and loud is the best way for me to comprehend evidence, but again, you don't have to be slow.

Things of note before your round starts:

If you are trying to be mean simply for the purpose of being mean because you want to overwhelm the other team and make them look bad, I will see right through it.

Flashing:

Add me to the email chain

Road-Mapping is cool

Voting:

I vote off the flow (tabs judge) so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments, so keep that in mind. If you try to confuse the other team instead of debating the specifics of your policy, I will vote down your team more than likely.

SPEAKER POINTS FOR ALL:

Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could get speaker points docked...

1.) Being an a-hole in your speeches towards someone or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner, I will have more leniency when it comes to those who may be discriminated against for being “too aggressive”, so don’t worry (I’m talking more about people who usually identify as women who have this issue)
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("Judge, you have to vote for this judge" over and over). I understand it's a habit for some, but avoid it if possible.
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "How's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me... for the love of God, do not do this. I debated for years, and you don't need to pretend you like me or the other team. Be mean to me if you want, I do not care, just don’t pretend like I’m any different than you in the round.
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) Not Road Mapping In-Round (Just say onto ___) Trying to trick the other team by not listing your advantages by name only hurts my flow for you. Just do it.
7.) DO NOT walk around the room during your speech or someone else's speech unless it's to grab evidence. I will heavily dock you.
8.) I will not dock you for speaking for your partner in the middle of their speech if you need to include something... I will listen to you. Your partner doesn't need to repeat it. Just know that I will take that into consideration if you're doing massive chunks of a speech and the negs run an education T argument.

IN-ROUND STUFF

K Affs

I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I only debated policy in high school. Explaining your advocacy is a must, and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise, it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.

Okay with identity args, high-theory, soft-left, just explain how the advocacy functions and solves

Make sure you are not name-dropping and assuming everyone knows who or what you are talking about.

Just make sure if you run a K Aff, tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.

Ks

Links: I'm not as persuaded by links of omission or links to the status quo unless you can explain how the aff furthers the harms you've isolated. Specific links are the best, but I'm persuaded by both links to the plan text and links to the advantages/impacts/representations of the aff.

Impacts: I'll evaluate the pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts of the k. Framing is important to tell me what kinds of impacts I should evaluate and whether theory should come first.

Alts/litbase: I probably don't know your theories or your authors, so be sure to explain how the alt functions and try to minimize jargon and name-dropping at every level of the flow. I'll vote on all kinds of alts as long as you explain how they function and win solvency of something (not necessarily the case, depending on the round and how impacts are weighed.)

Perm: I won't vote on a perm that wasn't clearly articulated in the 2AC. You need to explain how it functions so that I can evaluate it weighed against the alt as a stand-alone.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at tannercronce@gmail.com. This is also how you add me to the email chain. Tell me when you do it.

Cross-Ex

I don’t flow cross-ex unless it’s clarifying for me, which means that you need to point out anything you find out during cross-ex during your speech.

No statements during cross-x questioning. Period. I will not flow statements and will disregard a response to the statement unless I feel it clarifies those who are being cx'd, not the ones making the statement. I also will not flow anything that has nothing to do with their evidence or anything I feel does not connect to the debate itself.

Inform me clearly when you are done with your time, aka when your 1AC is over, when cross-x is over, when your prep is done, etc.

If you feel that the author has specific biases, point them out and explain. I want to know that you know authors and how to identify credible sources. Okay with Open Cross ex as long as you don't dominate your partner's cross-ex

Disadvantages

I'll enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides is a must to win in these debates. I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on the specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

Topicality

Just make sure if you run a K Aff, tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.

Topicality is a great position and one of the most important for me and unfortunately, hardly anyone goes for it. It has to be run well, though… I get a lot of people who will go for T but do not actually have a fleshed-out reason for me to vote for T. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of God, don't read reverse voters on T.

Framework

Framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

Counterplans

Competition is important, and if a CP isn't competitive, a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP, in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me.

I'm not likely to vote on a CP unless it is actually argued well. I won’t if it’s abusive. I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR. I will vote for it if it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off blocks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About me: I debated policy at Reagan HS for four years. Yes, put me on the email chain, my email is joaquindehaan@gmail.com

Speed: Speed is fine just make sure that I can understand you.

Tech v. Truth: I will try my best to be a blank state tech judge throughout the round but there are some arguments that I do not prefer which I will go through. I will not tolerate any type of discrimination (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). I will report teams to the equity committee and tank speaks if it is directed towards the other team.

DAs: I will be fine with just about any DA presented to me, just make sure to thoroughly explain your link chain.

K’s: I love and respect Ks. Please do not present me a K that you do not understand the literature of.

Topicality: I am fine with topicality but look down on it as a time skew. If you are going for T your 2nr should be a full 5 min of it.

Counterplans: No strong feelings one way or the other just make sure to have a net ben

LD: I am new to this style of debate so I am open to hearing and voting on any type of argument.

I think making sure you present a strong framework is one of the most important things you can do. Just make sure that my framework flow is clean and not a wash.

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

Tldr:

Yes, put me on the email chain! (daisy.jagoditsh@gmail.com)

Run whatever as long as it’s not racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/death good. I evaluate the round how you tell me to evaluate it

About me

I'm a judge for SPASH

SPASH 2021, UW Madison 2025

I have debated every position in my lifetime and I was double ones my junior year so... judge me I guess.

I would consider myself a tabs judge, I think it is kind of violent when judges refuse to vote on things "because they default to a policy lens." run a K or run a DA, I don't really care just frame the debate for me so that I am not forced to choose between two paradigms?

honestly, as long as you aren't running any of the things I specified above, you shouldn't feel the need to judge-adjust for me.

I read a solid amount of K stuff on the aff and the neg, but I wouldn't consider myself a K judge. Either way, I’ve run and won with policy affs throughout my debate career, and I’ve been known to go for DAs/CPs/Topicality in the 2NR.

In terms of facial expressions, I think it's generally important for debaters to be able to see the judge during a round, which is why I try to keep my camera on during speeches and cross-ex at least. That said, I don't tend to be very expressive until the RFD, so don't interpret my lack of reaction as a lack of attention.

I don’t tolerate rudeness/disrespect to your opponents, your partner, or myself. I’ll let you know right away if you’re being rude or disrespectful, and if the behavior is egregious enough or continues after I warn you your speaks will suffer.

If you need to stop or pause the round for any reason, please let me know. Debate should be a safe space for everyone and I understand that there is often quite a bit of pressure to put up with absolutely unacceptable behavior on the part of opponents/coaches/judges/tournament officials, especially for those of us who are already marginalized within the space. You are not obligated to endure hate or disrespect. You are not obligated to be silent while your opponent speaks over you in cross-ex. You are not obligated to read what you are told to read if you know that it is wrong. The only way that we can improve the systemic issues which we all know are present within debate is by confronting them head-on. Ultimately, this is y'all's space. The line between "in-round abuse" as a reason to reject the team and give the other the ballot and in-round violence as a reason to stop the round immediately and DQ one team can be very thin, which is why I'm inclined to listen to the debaters. If you tell me in your speech that something is a violation of debate rules/norms and a reason to vote, I'll evaluate it as a debate argument. If you express to me in or outside of a speech or cross-ex that you don't feel the round can continue, I'll honor that. Because of this, I think that some rounds require a more participatory group discussion in lieu of or following the RFD-- feel free to let me and your opponents know if you'd like to dissect the round as a group and/or have a conversation about something specific that happened.

Please time your own speeches and prep—I’ll record how much prep YOU tell me you’ve taken and remind you of how much you have left, but in general I trust you to have integrity and behave like an adult. Feel free to time your opponents’ speeches as well.

I DO NOT count flashing/emailing time as prep… however, if the time it takes to put together the flashing document/save to the flashdrive/attach to the email chain becomes excessive or involves a lot of typing (as if you were… maybe… writing your speech?), this could be subject to change.

(Not really relevant at the moment but) Paper teams: I expect you to hand any evidence you read to your opponents as you read it. If your evidence is stapled and for some reason you can’t unstaple it, or if you accidentally put your cards on the wrong side of your stand (it’s been known to happen) arrangements will be made to provide the other team with some reading time (depending on the amount of evidence) before cross-ex/prep begins. If one team is paperless and the other team does not have any kind of computer to view speechdocs, a viewer laptop must be provided.

Speed

On the body of cards, go as fast as you want, but PLEASE read tags and analytics a little bit more slowly than you read cards. Clarity is key! I’ll tell you “clear” twice if I genuinely can’t understand you before I stop flowing. If you’re going to spread your blocks as if they’re cards please at least include them in your speech docs.

T/THEORY/FRAMEWORK/ANALITCAL STUFF IS NOT THE PLACE TO BE SPREADING AT TOP SPEED! I’ll be a lot more sympathetic to the other team if you end up going for subpoint d of your 7th 10-second theory block from the 2AC. Again, if you send it out on the email chain, we can flow it, but otherwise I don’t think I can ethically vote on something I didn’t catch.

Topicality

I love a good T debate! I went for it a lot my senior year, and I think I’m very tech-over truth on topicality arguments… that said, I think that if you genuinely meet the other team’s interpretation and you want to take the risk the 2AR can go for “we meet.”

You definitely need to impact out your violation…. Why does it matter that you don’t have ground against this aff? If YOU IN THIS SPECIFIC DEBATE do have ground, what precedent is the affirmative team setting? Please actually give WARRANTS and EXAMPLES.

Impact calc on the T flow can actually be really helpful for both teams… how do I weigh Aff Choice Vs. Education? Reasonability vs. Fairness?

TVA: I think that in the case of straight topicality a case list might be a better way to go but it’s up to you if you want to go for the TVA instead. I think that on this topic, there are several T violations that are very strategic against K-affs, in which case you should DEFINITELY be reading me a TVA.

Framework

also, FRAMEWORK! IS! NOT! T!

Too often, teams run a “T USFG” violation and try to act like it’s framework. If you’re going to make the argument that affirmative teams must defend FIATED government action, then there should probably be a definition of “should” in your 1NC or some other indication of how FIAT is intrinsic to the resolution. Your violation should be supported by definitions.

The best way to win a framework debate in front of me (whether you’re aff or neg) is by CLASHING WITH THE OTHER TEAM’S ARGUMENTS. If they read me a specific indict of your definition or a DA to your interpretation and all you do in response is read a six-minute overview, I’m not going to be super persuaded. Obviously teams that read kritikal affirmatives are usually very prepared to hit framework, and teams that read framework probably had to dig it up from some decades-old backfile, but you need to do more than just read me your blocks.

TVA: I think that if the negatives prove that their interpretation is good, a TVA can be fatal for the affirmative case. That said, I don’t think that the TVA is a voter if you’re not winning the violation or interpretation.

Theory

Go for it! If your theory violation is explained well/debated well/impacted out/not violent and you legitimately beat the other team in the theory debate then I’ll vote on even the whack stuff regardless of my personal feelings on whether or not something should be allowed in debate.

See “speed” for more advice on how to run theory in front of me.

Aff advantages/Solvency

This might be revolutionary but I don’t think that “They didn’t contest the internal link chain so give us full weight of a nuclear war vote aff automatically” is an extension of your case. PLEASE give a quick overview of your actual advantage scenario… it doesn’t have to be long, but if it’s being weighed against a DA/CP/K that’s explained well I’ll have a really hard time voting aff.

We stan a solvency takeout... but we also stan an impact turn. I think that if the off case/on case arguments prove that the aff is either a) a bad idea or b) no real change from the status quo I'll have a really hard team voting aff.

K affs

Here it is, the moment you’ve all been waiting for—yes, please run your k aff in front of me! I don’t think you *need* to have in-round solvency, but if you do, tell me about it! I don’t think your overview on case *has* to be super long but I’m also not against long overviews… if you want to offer a role of the ballot specific to your aff, that’s fine. If the role of the ballot is just “vote for the best idea,” that’s fine too. If your aff does not defend a reduction in foreign military sales and/or direct commercial sales of arms from the United States, then you should explain why your lack of topicality is necessary—feel free to be creative with your explanations.

Definitely see the Ks section for more info on debating your advocacy/ROB/impacts

DAs

I mean… it’s a DA. I’ll be really annoyed if I have to vote on a nonsensical link but I do vote on the flow so… if you’re negative, read a good link card and if you’re affirmative and their link card is bad, PLEASE attack it. I’m fine w/ new link scenarios in the 2NC to an extent… I think there’s an unfair burden on the 1AR if you’re basically running a new DA, but if you win the theory debate I won’t intervene.

I’m not super persuaded by 6 different marginally different DAs with the same nuclear war impact in the same 1NC… I’ll be much more sympathetic in that case to the aff cross-applying answers.

CPs

Fairly self-explanatory… I don’t think that CPS nEED to be topical or nEEd to be non-topical either way. I think that the goal of the counterplan is probably to solve the impacts of the aff, but if the net benefit is strong enough and the only aff argument on the CP flow is a solvency deficit, I could vote for the CP anyway.

I think the CP flow is where the most theory pops out so please, feel free to go off!

Ks

I don’t think you need to read a super-long overview at the top but you can if you want… I also *HATE* that I have to say this but the 1nr/2nc does NOT have to follow the order of the 2AC. The 2AC should try to follow the order of the 1NC but with perms and maybe framing at the top. Please rest assured that I AM FLOWING YOU. Whether you’re reading psychoanalysis/nationalism/colonialism/queerness lit or something that I’ve never heard of before, I’ll listen to your speeches and use what you tell me to make my decision. I know that a lot of debaters are voted down too often because the judge either thinks that they understand the theory of power and doesn’t flow OR the judge is convinced that they are incapable of understanding the theory of power and refuses to flow it.

On the link level, I think that your link should be to the 1AC or Cross-ex in some way… but what part of the 1AC/cross ex (plantext, advantages, framing, fiat, problematic language, etc) is up to you. I don’t tend to buy arguments from the affirmative that “this is how debate has always been so we should keep debating the same way” just because that’s not… a warrant.

I think that negative framing can be new in the 2 because you’re really answering the 2AC framing argument. If the 1AC didn’t explicitly say “We get to weigh our impacts bc fiat good” I don’t think the 1NC should be forced into spending time on trying to guess how the aff wants to frame the round. That said, I give the 1AR a little bit of leeway for tagline framing arguments.

Go for whatever impact you want… pre-fiat, post fiat, whatever. I’d like to see either framing or some kind of calculus with the aff’s impacts, although, as always, this depends on the specific round.

As far as the alt goes… I’m cool with refusal alts if you explain what I’m refusing and why. I’m also cool with fiated/hypothetical alts like “embrace the communist party” or whatever. For the aff, I’m much more persuaded by arguments about how the negatives’ arguments are wrong than I am by backfiles cards indicting the theory of power as it was 20 years ago.

Todd Le— Policy

updated 1/12/22 (for WSDT)

School Affiliation: Homestead High School (lol rip) (2012-2020); LaCrosse Central (2022)

Position: stressed med student

If you have questions about an RFD feel free to e-mail at: todd241 (at) gmail (dot) com - put me on the chain btw

I know prefs suck so I'ma try to make this as painless as possible. Am I qualified to judge your debate? Probably not - I've forgotten everything about debate

Do my argument ideas align with yours? I don't think that really matters but my time away from the activity has me leaning towards familiarity which is heavily policy leaning compared to K leaning. That said, if you are a K team that doesn't mean my ballot is automatically signed, but it does mean you will have to explain concepts to me like I'm 5. I'll vote on whatever - I just need to know what I'm voting for and the ROB to be evident. Overviews? - pls. Impact Calc? FFS please do.

If you have questions about specific arguments ask me before round - no guarantee my answers will be helpful though

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Section for LD:

I am new to LD and a lot of my debate opinions are derived from policy debate - most of the items below should still apply. Good with speed, Theory, Ks, plan, etc. Feel free to ask specific questions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview Tech > truth

Counterplans I have no idea what CPs look like on this topic but general things: PICs are fine, theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team, judge kick is fine, isolated net bens in 2NR is v good, severance perms are rarely reason to reject the team.

Disadvantages/Advantages Line by line is key, overview when necessary, impact calc is one of the only objective ways for me to weigh a round so if all is lost gimme some impact calc to work with pls and thank you. Affirmatives kicking the aff and going for turns on disads is one of the most chad things to do and will be looked upon favorably.

Topicality & Theory I've never seen a good theory 2NR/2AR that I like, or one that I thought was well done. I'm fine with most theory arguments but make sure you tell me how to use it i.e justification to reject the team or reject the arg. I'm fine with theory being run in the 1AR/block if it's justified. My threshold voting for T gets lower as seasons go on and people want to try and be more cheaty and dumb.

Kritiks The only thing worst than bad debate is bad K debate. The K is a unique tool that can be used effectively, but 2NCs of 5 min overviews and 3 mins of line by line referring to the overview is boring to listen to. Clean line by line on the K is good. Isolate the -ology debate (epis/onto/etc.) for me since it's been a while since I've seen these args.

I am so very sorry but I am a Mom judge....but it might not be that bad. I did debate policy in High school and coached for Brookfield Central. However, I haven't been around debate for 15 years.

To make things easy on me and you, just please make things clear and tell me how to vote.

Speed: I was never that fast but I can handle moderate speed. I give pretty clear non verbals, if you look up you can see if I am comprehending

My advice is to debate in the style you're most comfortable with, make what you think are your best arguments, and hope for the best. I judged quite a bit in the late '90s/early 2000's when I coached a team that competed nationally. I don't know much about anything anymore, but I'm used to fast debates and do my best to resolve arguments based on what's said in the round.

About me: I did three years of policy debate at Reagan HS and I currently attend Marquette University. I’m open to answering questions, although, I will probably not have all of the answers.

I will not tolerate any type of discrimination (sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.); this will result in your speaker points being lowered and being reported to the tournament.

Debate is about having fun! Please be respectful towards everyone in the room and have fun. Also, yes, include me on the email chain my email is brendaeparedes@gmail.com

LD Paradigm:

I'm new to judging LD but I'm a tabs judge, I will vote on anything if it's explained well. I'm okay with speed, just keep a respectful and organized round.

Policy Paradigm:

Tech v Truth: I will try, to the best of my abilities, to be a tech tabula rasa judge. I will vote on anything, yes that includes untraditional affirmatives, as long as you thoroughly explain it to me

Speed: I’m okay with moderate speed, if it gets to the point of incomprehension I will say “clear” three times before I stop flowing. Please slow down so everyone can fully comprehend your arguments. Also, I prefer for the negative team to have 2-3 off that are fully developed and explained; rather than running an obscene amount of off-case that are going to get dropped after the 1NC.

Disadvantages: Your link chain should be thoroughly explained to me. I’m not the biggest fan of big stick impacts but I understand that this is pretty much what novices are limited to, therefore I will vote on it.

Topicality: I don’t like when topicality is used as a time skew. If you’re running topicality make sure you fully commit to it and explain it thoroughly.

Kritiks: I love kritiks and a good kritik debate. Please make sure you understand the argument though and know how to explain it to me. I will be very disappointed if the kritik flow is a wash and turns into something that is up in the air.

Counter-Plans: My flow on a CP debate shouldn’t just be the Aff stating a perm. Make sure you thoroughly explain to me why the plan, perm, or CP is the best

Impact calculus and clash do that please, I’m begging

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.

About me

Class of 2023 of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, with a major Sociology & Pre-law, and a minor in Political Science.

I've debated in policy all four years for Ronald Reagan High School (2016-2020). Since my high school debate days came to end, I have been judging debate in both policy, PF and LD. I also have been an assistant debate coach to my former high school. In summer 2023, I also obtained a fellowship working with National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL), furthering my knowledge in debate!

Yes, put me on the email chain zapidalia@gmail.com :)

Debate Stuff

I am a TABS judge, which stands tabula rasa, latin for "clean slate". Basically, this means you have to show and explain to me why arguments should be voted on. Clean slate means that I come in a round with no prior assumptions on what to vote on. In essence, I will vote on anything as long as it is properly explained and elaborated.

I do not tolerate any racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments.

Specifics

Speed: I think debate is about how well you argue, not how fast you can read. I am okay with spreading and speed, as long as you are clear.

Cross ex: Open cross ex always okay, just be mindful of individual speaker points

Framework: I LOVE framework, I will evaluate rounds on framing if you present one to me. As I do have a background in policy debate, I am familiar and very fond of framing that ranges anywhere from util, deontology, to consequentialism and categorical imperative.

Value Criterion: I like comparative analysis and direct clash against your opponent's framing. Please be sure to it pull through the round! If your value criterion is identical, I will leave it up to you to make those distinctions to me and/or outweighing your position on the resolution.

About me:

Pronouns: she/they

Currently the assistant coach at La Crosse Central (specifically coaching novice policy).

I did Policy debate as a novice for one year as a senior at La Crosse Central, and am now a sophomore at UW-La Crosse for Sociology!

Debate Stuff:

Speed: I’m okay with whatever pace you want as long as you are clear and aren’t trying to be Eminem.

Kritiks, CPs, DAs, T, etc: Run whatever you wish as long as you can make the argument. I don’t vote based on what I like/dislike.

Please include me on the email chain: evarussellmiller@gmail.com

Please time your own speeches and prep time if you can.

Please treat everyone with kindness and respect.

Personal Background: I debated four years in Wisconsin. I competed at NCFLs and NSDAs 4 times each. Most of my experience is in PF, Congress, and extemp but I have some experience with other events.

Include me on Email Chains please: rspors25@gmail.com

The vast majority of the rounds I have judged this year are policy rounds. That being said, don't spread in front of me. If you are spreading, share a speech doc, but just please don't. If you are running a K, T, or CP, you better be ready to explain it well (For example if you are running a T don't just rattle off the tags Education, Time abuse etc. Explain these arguments to me well). I tend to prefer 1 or 2 well reasoned arguments over 15 tags with no links or warrants.

TLDR: Have good ethics, Trust the Flow, Don't be a jerk.

Policy:

If you have received a blast and I am your policy judge, please know my experience is in PF/LD in a very traditional district. A fairly low level of Speed is okay but if I can't hear you I can't flow you. I will keep a flow and I will vote on the flow. If you are running a theory or a K it will take work to convince me but I am not against these types of arguments. Topicality or Framework arguments are things I am far more familiar with and I also tend to find them more relevant to the round than other theory arguments. In essence, convince me that your plan would work, and is the best solution. If you are the neg, Convince me they are wrong.

PF: Constructive: Speed is fine as long as you are clear. If you are unclear I will stop flowing and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot. I competed in a very traditional district so that is what I am most familiar with. If you are running some sort of progressive debate, make it a strong case. I think progressive arguments are overused in PF. If you are running something weird, explain it well and convince me. I think debate is ultimately an event based in convincing your opponents and judge. Convince me your argument isn't so weird.

Rebuttal: I want a line by line. 2nd rebuttal should include responses to 1st rebuttal otherwise it is dropped. That being said, don't be toxic and attempt to spread people out of rounds by arguing you should win the round based on a dropped third subpoint on your sixth response to their observation. Win the round via solid argumentation not some trick.

Summary: Summary is the hardest speech in a round. As a general rule, if something isn't in your summary it better not be in your final focus. Summary is a speech for crystalizing your arguments into something that can be used in your final focus and weighing. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH. If you don't weigh, you make me weigh. You will be sad because I may not weigh your voters favorably, I will be sad because you made me do more work. Don't make everyone sad. Weigh! Also don't just say "we win on timeframe and scope and yada yada yada" I can do that. Tell me why, under the established framework you are winning in a way that means you must win the round. If you want to use all those fancy weighing words, don't just shout the buzzwords at me. Tell me why I should be deciding the round in terms of timeframe, magnitude etc.

Final Focus: Give me the voters. Tell me why you're winning the important points of the round and tell me why that means you're winning the round. The final focus is not "Rebuttal: Reprise" (nor is the summary for that matter). Please do not just word vomit every card your side read the whole round. Tell me why you won.

LD:

Values and Criterions are important. Treat them like they are important. Whichever value wins out is how I am going to weigh the round. Make your arguments in terms of the values and weigh under the criteria.

Lincoln Douglas is a debate of values and morals. Keep that in mind.

Progressive debate is fine just make it make sense.

Everything I said above about speed, argumentation and weighing remains true for LD.

Congress:

1. This event is called congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving. Use your speech times to advance an argument, to directly clash with other speakers, and to persuade the audience to your side. That being said while I do want a well-reasoned debate, you are also essentially cosplaying as senators so there is some room for theatrics and if done well, this can add to your speech. A boring speech is not very persuasive.
2. SPEED! Speed does not belong in this event whatsoever. You are senators persuading the body to vote one way or another on a bill not policy debaters.
3. I would rather you give no speech at all than a repetitive, pre-written speech that takes time from other debaters who want to bring up new points.
4. Questioning periods, points, and motions weigh heavily on my ballot. Use these to your advantage. Answering questions well is HUGE for me. Effective use of parli pro is impressive to see, but incorrect use is a big disadvantage.
5. I will rank the PO as we are instructed to do. If you are an excellent PO you are likely in the running for the top spot in my rankings. If you are a poor PO you will likely find yourself near the bottom. Being a good PO is about running a fair and efficient chamber. I want that chamber to run like a well oiled machine.
6. Evidence, Follow the same ethics and evidence things I have stated below.

General Things for Everyone:

The Flow: In this round the flow is going to be king. If I can't understand you I can't flow you and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot.

Critique: I will disclose if they let me. I will give a oral critique if they let me. Everything will be on the ballot. I know how valuable that feedback is to coaches and competitors alike. If you are unhappy with my oral critique, look to my ballot for more information. If you have any questions, ask them. I am more than happy to give more advice/feedback. If you are just postrounding trying to argue about my decision. Don't, that's annoying.

Evidence Ethics:IMPORTANT There is nothing that irritates me more than shoddy evidence standards. This is an educational activity and if there is a card to which the content is in question it is possible I will call for said card. Be prepared. I want to be included in your email chains (rspors25@gmail.com).

Cross: Don't be abusive. Be assertive. I think cross is one of the most informative parts of a debate round. I will be actively listening but not actively flowing. If something is conceded in cross, it is conceded. That being said, it still needs to be brought up in speeches to make my ballot. If something important happens during cross, explicitly tell me "Judge write that down" I will but then I will expect you to elaborate in a speech.

Speaker points: I will probably be pretty generous with speaks. If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, Antisemitic, or anything else bad, expect the speaks to reflect that. Cross is a really good way to impress me and show me that you are a 30 pt speaker.

About me:

I am currently a student at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, majoring in Information Science and Technology.

I debated Policy Debate for Ronald Reagan High School for 4 years (2017-2021).

Current Assistant Director for Ronald Reagan Debate Team (2021-present)

Please put me on the e-mail chain<3 : nickdebate12@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I believe in tech over truth, making sure that you respond to all arguments on the table. Typically, I am more K sided in understanding than policy. I think policy args when done in large successions can get draining and uneducational. I LOVE to see a good k debate round with an interesting alt and clash coming from the aff team. Though, when it comes to technicality, I often vote on policy args (DAs, Ts, CPs) when they are not responded well enough.

Make sure you are respectful toward your partner, the debaters you are competing against and the judge. More importantly, please be respectful towards the topics and concepts you bring up/go against. The beauty of Policy Debate is the opportunity teams get to address current social issues and personal experiences. Please maintain a level of respect when addressing them. Disrespect can and WILL negatively affect your speaker points.

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.