Policy Judging Paradigm

Background: Began competing in high school debate in 2008 (Policy) representing West Bend. Competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in 2009. I began judging (also for West Bend) since I graduated from high school in Spring 2009. At the time this page was last updated (December 2011) I am a Junior attending Concordia-University Wisconsin majoring in Criminal Justice & Public Policy with a minor in Legal Studies.

Constraints: West Bend

Paradigm: Policymaker. Will compare plan presented by the AFF as opposed to the Status Quo and offense generated by the NEG.

1. Please don't scream at me. Not that I startle easy or have sensitive hearing, but I find it less than professional. This doesn't mean you have to whisper. It means that you should speak in a volume as you would

2. I don't like excessive speed. I define excessive speed as speaking above slightly faster than normal conversational tone. It makes it difficult for me to understand you and flow your arguments effectively. I also see it as somewhat unreasonable. You should be able to win on your merits and skills, not for the reason that you can spread. That said, I do understand that one's interpretation of excessive can be different than my own. I will give you two verbal warnings that you are speaking at a unreasonable rate of speed by stating "CLEAR." If you do not slow your rate after these warnings I will stop typing or writing and look slightly irritated.

3. Counter-Plans are fine, but must be non-topical. Do not try selling what AFF is doing and then just "tweak" a couple of things. If this is the case I will not give it any consideration when weighing the round.

4. Topicality. If the AFF is not being topical, by all means, run T. But it is up to the NEG to prove to me that there is a violation. I would also advise being reasonable in the number of T arguments you run. 5 is more than enough.

5. I have warmed up to Kritiks. Would urge you to run it if you have a reasonable basis to do so in the round.

6. DAs are fine. But be careful not to be too generic.

7. NO PROMPTING. This has become increasingly present in Varsity debate and dissuades me greatly. It is up to your partner to run what is best during their allotted speech time and vice versa up to you when you are speaking. You can also use your prep time to game plan what you are going to do. But shouting commands to your partner while they are speaking is unacceptable. If this happens whatever was prompted to occur will not reach my flow and never happened. The violator (person who spoke out of turn) will also receive a sharp reduction of speaker points.

8. I also appreciate teams who are able to effectively debate without having to grab each sheet of evidence from the other team as soon as it is read. Flowing your opponent's arguments is an important skill and shouldn't be taken for granted. While I will not penalize you for doing so I will also not require the other team to comply if they do not wish to do so.

9. Laptop users. I have nothing against you, I like laptops too. However, I find it less than productive when the round is held in limbo for 5 minutes while you copy information from a laptop, to a USB, to another laptop. If it becomes a pattern during the round speaker points will be reduced for a lack of promptness.

10. Be civil. Loud and obnoxious scoffing, gestures, or bickering (not the same as debating) is unprofessional and thus not acceptable.

11. Will not do oral critiques while tournament is in progress. Unfair to other debaters and judges who wish to have a prompt competition.

Hope this is of assitance to you. Questions can be directed to Carl.Knepel@cuw.edu

Good luck!

LD Judging Paradigm

Background: Began competing in high school debate in 2008 (Policy) representing West Bend. Competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in 2009. I began judging (also for West Bend) since I graduated from high school in Spring 2009. At the time this page was last updated (December 2011) I am a Junior attending Concordia-University Wisconsin majoring in Criminal Justice & Public Policy with a minor in Legal Studies.

Constraints: West Bend

Value/Value Criterion: I expect you to have both and support them THROUGHOUT THE ROUND. Failure to do so will result in an automatic drop. The only exception to this rule will be if you agree on a common value during the round, or if you and your opponent decide the V/VC is unimportant, in which case both of you will take a hit in speaker points. Although I will not vote automatically for the debater who wins the V/VC debate, I will in most cases, unless your opponent’s contentions manage to convince me otherwise.

Definitions: Very doubtful that I will vote solely on a definition. So now that you know this, please don’t spend unnecessary time debating them. Don’t have definitions that make it impossible for the opposing side to win. Judges notice this.

Argumentation: If it pertains to the resolution and is supported with evidence (empirics preferred however analytics will suffice if you know what you are talking about) I will flow it. No counterplans. As far as which arguments hold more emphasis with me, that is where your voters come in. As stated above, I take the V/VC debate very seriously. Strong theory arguments will also gain increased attention.

Please extend warrants. This doesn’t mean you have to re-read cards word for word, however, it does require more than, “please extend my Contention 2 sub-point A.”

Weigh your arguments.

Voters: Tell me what to vote on. If you fail to do so I will vote on what I feel are the most important arguments in the round.

Pet Peeves:

Speed. You should be speaking slightly faster than normal conversation. Spreading to the point that you are continually gasping for air is a cheap tactic.

Respect. This is big for me. Just because this a competition event does not mean we can’t maintain a degree of civility. If you show a lack of it towards your opponent your speaker points will disappear.

Will not do oral critiques while tournament is in progress. Unfair to other debaters and judges who wish to have a prompt competition.


Please direct questions to Carl.Knepel@cuw.edu
Good luck!