Feudner,+Eric

=Debate/Judging Experience=

Debate:
I debated three years in high school policy for Sheboygan South High. One year was novice and the other two years where varsity. All three years I attended state, and the two years of varsity I attended CFL Nationals in Policy.

Judging:
I am currently the assistant coach at Sheboygan South High. I have judged for two years (school year of 13-14 and 14-15). During the first I judged Novice and VSS but mostly PF. During the second I judged mostly Novice and VSS.

Other:
I was also involved in forensics for four years. There I did storytelling, solo humorous, but mostly student congress and extemp.

=Judging Conflicts= Sheboygan South High

=Paradigm=

Speed:
I am fine with speed. As stated above I debated varsity for two years so I am used to it. I will let you know if you are going to fast or you are unclear. Generally when I have a problem it is because you are unclear not because you are too fast. I do prefer to here internal road maps or signposting. Slow down and tell me when you are switching to a new flow. Also be really clear about what the flow is (I.E. Now I am moving on to DeDev). Otherwise I just make up my own names for the flows based on what I think they should be called, and then I end up getting lost. Slowing down when reading taglines/cites and indicating you are on a new card (either through numbering/lettering/or saying 'next') helps me stay organized.

Topicality:
I will vote on topicality, but only if the plan is clearly off topic. I prefer to see in round abuse. Also just listing things like "fairness, bright line, jurisdiction" etc. is stupid. Anyone can list off a bunch of words, you need to actually explain it. In the end topicality is a voting issue not because of 'jurisdiction' or something like that. I see it as a voting issue for cases where there is actual abuse, or when the aff is really truly off topic (i.e. running Moon colonization on oceans), not some debate on grammar and semantics.

Kritiks:
I am not a philosophy major. Slow down and cite scholarly sources. I don't want to hear your interpretation of philosopher x, because you are not qualified to make those interpretations. I also don't want to here long taglines and then one line of the card actually highlighted. That one line never seems to have anything to do with the tag or the topic in general. I prefer policy alternatives or at least alternatives that are not simply reject the aff. Also you need to make it clear why the alternative works and you need more then just "the aff was written in x mindset" because as the judge I don't have to vote for it on the affs mindset.

Theory:
Theory is boring. Don't run it, or do. In the end I will listen to it and maybe even vote on it, but I will hate you forever. '

Summery:
I would consider myself a tabs judge, but with leanings towards policy making. I will listen to all sorts of arguments, and as long as you do a good job explaining the argument, and your evidence is good, there is a chance I will vote on it. My big thing is I like to here impact calculus in the rebuttal, as well as going line by line and flow by flow. Explain to me why you are winning each flow, or why a flow doesn't matter. Explain the impacts of that flow and why they are bigger, faster, or just generally more important then the opponents impacts. It helps when you go through important cards and explain why this card beats out the other teams evidence. Otherwise I end a debate with a bunch of evidence on both sides but no one telling me why there evidence is better.