Judging Constraints:
West Bend

Background Information:
I was a policy debater through all 4 years of high school at West Bend East (1999-2002). I also participated in forensics and student congress, and have been judging all three since graduating in 2003.

Tabula Rasa

I am fine with speed as long as it is clear, concise, and well articulated. If I can not understand what you are saying, it will not be flowed, and therefore not judged on. I feel that when speed is used as a means to confuse your opponent that it does not make for a good debate, and unclear speeches will affect your speaker points.

I will vote on T, but only if it is a reasonable argument. I do not want to hear five different topicality arguments and nothing on the aff plan. At this point in the season, there should not be much that you are not ready to debate. I also do not want to hear topicality on words such as "in", "an", etc. or hear redundant topicalities such as both "increase" and "significantly increase" or "military" and "military presence" in rounds. Such case irrelevant and redundant Ts do nothing to enhance the debate and only serve to annoy me. If you are going to argue abuse, make sure there is real abuse happening.

I will listen to counterplans, however, I rarely vote on them. If you are running a counterplan, it should be non-topical. Otherwise, what is the point of running a one? You should also be explaining the benefits of your counterplan over the aff plan, not just reading the CP to me.

Once again, I will listen to Ks, but rarely, if ever, vote on them. If you are running a kritik, it must be well explained with good (credible) evidence to back it up.

I will listen to and vote on DAs, but they must link. Those DAs that come out of left field and don't link will not be considered. I also expect to hear more than just DAs. I expect other aspects of the aff plan to be addressed as well.

A few notes on debate etiquette
- You should at least be civil to your opponent. Blatant rudeness will result in my docking of your speaker points.
- Cross-examination will be closed. I should not hear your partner shouting things out to you or the other team. If your partner needs help, you should do this during prep, or quietly while your opponents are speaking.
- I do not want to see any one standing up behind their opponents, peering over their shoulders while they are speaking to read and take the evidence to their partner. I find this to be very rude. You should be using this time to flow and to prepare your speeches. If I have to flow the round, you should too.

A few other notes:
- I like road maps, and do not time them.
- I like summaries/analysis of evidence. Instead of just reading card after card to me, tell me what the cards are saying and how they apply to the debate.
- Not everything leads to nuclear war and/or mass extinction. Please come up with some more plausible scenarios.
- Try to avoid using words such as "like", "um", "ah", "well", "so", "okay", etc. as fillers when you lose your train of thought. These make you appear unknowledgeable and distract from the point you are trying to make. Excessive use of these will affect your speaker points.
- My post-secondary education is primarily in the field of Psychology, so please don't run psychology heavy DAs, CPs, etc. unless you actually know what they are talking about and can explain them in your own words. I will know most of your sources and their theories, and will know that you have no idea what it is you are trying to run.
- I do not disclose or give oral critiques.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at klepien@hotmail.com.


I have been judging LD for the past four years.

As I am primarily a Varsity Policy judge (and former debator), I can follow speed. However, I do not feel that excessive speed is necessary in LD debate. If you choose to use speed, then you must be clear and articulate well. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Value, Value Criterion:
You must have both, and must support them throughout the round. You must also convince me that your value and criterion are the better ones in the round and that I should vote for them.

I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Cross-ex is for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to berate them and try to prove your superiority. I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:
I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and and why I should vote on them.

Oral critiques and disclosure:
I do not give oral critiques, nor do I disclose the outcome of the round.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at klepien@hotmail.com.