I am the assistant debate coach in Wisconsin for Appleton East High School. I debated for in high school for four years in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I judged last year on the WI circuit for the most part, and for LD on the nat'l circuit.

Speed: As long as you are clear, I would probably classify myself as being able to listen/comprehend/flow at a 7.5 or 8 on a ten point scale. (ten being the fastest). I will make it very clear to you if I am not keeping up with you, and I expect the debaters to be responsive to those very clear signals.

Expectations: I expect and enjoy a clean debate. I am not offended terribly easily- so I wouldn't worry. I'm not offended by strong language. Again, it will be very obvious if I feel that any of the debaters are being offensive. However, I am pretty comfortable with an informal debate setting, i dont care if you sit or stand, make eye contact, or leave the room *quietly* to go to the bathroom, get a drink of water whatever.

Policy- General:
Do the work for me and be clear: I don't want to be stuck at the end of the round trying to figure out what you meant when you rattled off the two second blippy arg "CP is not functionally competitive"- that doesnt actually tell me anything. Instead of relying on debate jargon to convey your meaning and arg to me, explain what the arg is. I have seen a lot of debaters get up and say that the card has no warrant and move on to the next argument. That's not good enough. You need to explain what isn't warranted in the card, and how that impacts the round. If you take the time to explain the arguments you will save me a lot of trouble at the end of the round and increase your chances of picking up my ballot.

give a good story: When you are giving me any sort of scenario, ADV, or DA's whatever the scenario might be- I want you to tell the story, meaning, that it has to have some sort of link or logical progression. An impact- not only does the arg have an impact, you need to tell me how it impacts the whole round: how does the argument operate on other flows. You need to be telling me why the arg is true, why it is important, and how it impacts the round. Weigh impacts- i dont care how you do it, but you need to find some sort of weighing mechanism that tells me how i choose between nuclear war and dehumanization. If you dont tell me, i get to to choose and you have a 50% chance of my choice not being in your favor- so dont let me choose.

Style: I prefer good arguments- it sounds redundant, but I hear a lot less of them than i would like. I understand that generic blippy responses are part of the debate culture- but try to stay away from them. I would much rather have you argue 5 really good, persuasive, logical, specific, and tailored args than 10 mediocre ones or 20 blippy ones. I like clash, please don't try to avoid it because you dont think that you can win.

Squirrely args: dont use them.

new args- dont like them. I really hate hearing a brand new counterplan in the rebuttal- and yes it's happened, and im telling you not to do it. If there is a situation in which a team is spewing out new args, please dont just whine and tell me that it they're new- i know that. Tell me if/why i should vote on it.

Prep: As long as there aren't any tournament specifications, I typically allow 8 minutes. Unless for some odd reasons both teams agree to do five minutes of prep, i usually just say eight is good.

Value/ Value Criterion Debate: I like to hear a very clear standards debate. I strongly believe that most v/vc args should be resolved going into the final rebuttals. Please don't feel that you *have* to win *your* vc. Just make sure you articulate what standard you are using, and then tell me a clear story of how your args impact the standard, and why it wins you the round. I'm not particular about having a "formal" value-criterion structure- just some kind of standard for me to weigh the impx on. Articulate some sort of standard, or impacts story- and I will probably buy it. I am not big into values unless one of the debaters articulates why the value is central to resolving burdens/creating a brightline between aff/neg ground.

I don't like people saying "This is how it's done in LD.... you can't read fast...." Really, as long as you provide a warrant for doing XYZ (be it evidence or logic) I will probably buy it. Note: New args in the 2ar/nr are not appropriate, and that's really all that needs to be said.

I like theory- as long as it is explained clearly and impacted.

Definitional debate: Please only spark one of these beasts when necessary. If you aren't going to use it to exclude or include args, then don't bother at all. Provide warrants for your interpretation- pretty standard expectations here.

Non-traditional args: See above; I will listen. I am very open to most ideas, I flow well, and I am fairly intelligent.

Extend warrants, not tag lines. I'm not saying that to be funny- I've seen it happen: "Please extend my tag from Contention 2"...
Impact: Seriously, just do it!
Weigh impacts: I can't stand when debaters don't weigh args. Typically, I feel that weighing of impx should really begin in the nc/1ar just because sometimes the weighing structure is complex enough that it can appear as if it is a new arg in the 2ar- so begin weighing as soon as you can. Honestly, don't leave unresolved impacts on the flow. My decisions tend to make debaters unhappy when I don't vote based on (whatever scenario with X impact). Turns out, I probably voted on (whatever scenario with Y impact). Do the work for me.

Anything else-just ask.