Affiliation: Hired Judge

Experience: I debated 3 years of policy at Sheboygan South. I’m a sophomore currently debating policy at Lakeland College. I judged as well as coached public forum last year at Sheboygan North, although I like policy much better. I have not judged any debate rounds this year.

Policy Paradigm: Tabula Rasa- I will vote on anything (policy, kritiks, performance, weird stuff, etc.) that is argued well. I want debaters to do what they're best at.

A few specific things:

Topicality- I never really liked topicality. Even though I dislike it, I have no problem with topicality being run and I will consider voting for it. Just make sure you actually do the work and spend time arguing it if you plan on winning the round with this argument.

Framework- I’m fine with frameworks. My main issue with these arguments is when they aren’t explained. First, I need to know why I should prefer your framework: education, fairness, more real world, etc. I just need some explanation here, not just reading a generic statement like “We increase education”. I need to know how we benefit from your approach to debate and how the other team does not create these benefits. Second, I need to know how your opponents' approach does not fit within your framework. I think an effective argument against framework is to prove that your case also fits in their framework, in combination with a counter-framework.

Theory- I tend to see theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Also, slow down when reading theory.

Speed- I’m fine with speed as long as the taglines are clear. I’ll say something if you’re unclear.

Line by Line- Something I saw in a few of the policy rounds I’ve judged is a lack of clash. It is the most frustrating thing possible as a judge. Please answer your opponents’ arguments. If neither team is being responsive to the other, I end up having to make my own decision. Don’t let it happen. Line by line is really important and is the best way to win my ballot and get good speaker points. That being said, if line by line isn't one of your strengths, there are ways to make it easier, such as frameworks or performances. Even so, at some level you will have to explain why your arguments are better than the other team's. If this doesn't make sense to you, just ask.

Number of arguments- This is mostly about negative teams. I’m fine with a team running many offcase positions, as long as they narrow the round down to one or two arguments by the 2nr. Going for five off in the 2nr will not end well.

If you have any other specific questions, please ask me before the round. I would be glad to explain anything. Seriously, you should ask me questions.

Lincoln Douglas:
I have no experience in LD at all, so I'm not sure what sorts of arguments are run in these debates. Basically, you should just debate the way you like to debate. Line by Line would still be important here. If you answer your opponent's arguments, you'll be more likely to get my ballot. I know I didn't write much here, but make sure you ask questions before the round if there's anything you want to ask specifically.