I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Updated September 2023: Realistically I'm exclusively judging locally and mostly novice debate, so 95% of this isn't useful for you.

Novice Coach Lincoln Douglas at Eagan High School (Somewhere in 2015ish - 2019, 2023-Present)

"Debate Coach" at Hopkins High School (2014)

Lincoln Douglas Debater and Extemporaneous Speaker at Eagan (2010 - 2014)

Please signpost. Please. For the love of all that is good, Signpost!

Disclosure: I don't like disclosure theory. If you really want to run it go ahead, but I'm not a judge who will actually consider a lack of disclosure problematic. In the same vein, I don't care if you don't send me the case in advance. If evidence sounds sketchy, I'll call for it after the round. Furthermore, I'm sympathetic to arguments against disclosure, as my personal opinion is that mandatory disclosure further makes it harder for smaller schools at the national circuit to be competitive.

Theory / Topicality: Not my favorite but I'm willing to hear it. Please understand that I default very strongly towards drop the argument and reasonability. This means if your opponent is being abusive call them out on it, and I'll drop the argument. If you are not running theory in a fully developed nice little shell, I will make the following assumptions for you: education and fairness are voters but whichever one matters more is left ambiguous, that the argument should be dropped whenever possible, and that I should evaluate the argument purely on the role it plays in this round, instead of some broader argument about which positions I would rather see take hold in the current "debate-meta".

Kritiks: I like critical arguments. I did not enjoy how they were being run when I was judging circuit in 2015-2018. I think if you want to run a full critical position it needs to do a few things:

A: It needs to be fully developed. If your "k" is a 2 minute long blitz of arguments with very broad and poorly formed links (both to the Aff/Neg and internally) then I'm going to not care for it. If you're willing to show that you did the reading required for a critical position, and that you're willing to engage in a debate with strong clear links between arguments in a way that flows logically and is well developed then I'll be a happy potato. The rule of thumb for me is the following: if you're spending less than 4 minutes on the K / off-case / whatever you want to call it then you're probably under-covering it. If you're running multiple critical arguments, I'm not going to be happy. That anger will be taken out on your speaks, and potentially will cause you to lose the round.

B: It needs to be clearly laid out logically, I want to see a proper framework, (I lean in favor of cases that don't utilize "Roll of the ballot" arguments but that's purely a framing issue) which in part tells me what arguments I should evaluate, how to evaluate them, why I care, etc etc etc. We're back to novice fundamentals, if you can't explain to me why I should care in a clean and concise manner, I don't see a reason to care.

C: If content includes anything that may be troubling to people in the round, you should make that clear PRIOR TO STARTING YOUR SPEECH. Really this should be the case for all positions, but especially with critical arguments that involve fundamental issues with society / how we frame and understand the world around us.

Speed: I coach novices. I primarily interact with parent judges when it comes to reading ballots. I am somewhat mildly comfortable evaluating arguments relating to dense Marxist positions and to a lesser extent things like Meta-ethics / epistemology. I am not comfortable evaluating those arguments when they're being blitzed out faster than slugs from a railgun. To get an idea of how "out of the circuit" I am, I haven't judged a circuit tournament in a few years, and I plan to keep it like that for the foreseeable future. Slow down for tags, key framework elements like values / standards, and author names. if I don't flow them, I don't evaluate them.

I will say slow twice. Then if you're still too fast, I simply will stop typing. I will yell clear twice. I normally give you five seconds of "grace" to fix yourself before alerting you. Don't presume I caught everything you were saying during the few seconds before and after yelling slow / clear.

Extensions: They need a claim, warrant, and impact. You need to articulate all three very clearly. If someone walks in to the 1AR/2NR and listens to your extensions they should be able to construct a decent synopsis of the case itself. If you don't put in the time and effort to extend things, I won't put in the time and effort required to extend things on my flow. If points are dropped, you can be brief with extending them but I need the claim and impact very explicitly stated still. "My opponent dropped Contention 1 subpoint D subheading iii line 13 so extend it across the flow" Isn't an extension that I'll flow.

Speaker points: I generally evaluate speaker points on things like clarity, argument structure and development, extensions (please for the love of all that is good extend properly), and overall how you carry yourself in the round. If you are openly rude to your opponent or to me, don't plan on getting high speaks. I generally have my speaks average around 27, and I mean that. This isn't "average is 27 but most people get a 28.5", but rather "I will average 27 speaks. Roughly half get more, roughly have get less" so don't be surprised if after a particularly rough round if you leave with a 25 because you didn't care to extend properly. A general description of points and what they mean can be found below. I will modify points due to three things: first, I will deduct speaks if you come up and shake my hand like if I'm a competitor after the round (That was a rule before COVID, it's still a rule now). Second, if you're rude, condescending, overly aggressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc etc. If you don't make this round a healthy environment to compete in, I will tank your speaks to the bottom of the marianna trench. Third, I'll give speaker points to people who provide clean roadmaps. Signposting is a lost art in debate. Bring it back.

25: Rough round, you made several mistakes, each of which is a good reason to not vote for you. This is a good rebuttal redo round.

26: One or two major mistakes, maybe some misarticulating of offense but not near the point where it's a severe issue. You should probably reread your evidence, work on extensions, and work on clarity.

27: average. Some mistakes, some good ideas. Clarity is fine. You showed up.

28: refreshing. I'm optimistic that you'll get a speaker award at least. Clarity is solid, speed is perfectly paced. Extensions were good. Arguments were well crafted. Good job.

29: Very confident. I'm happy with almost everything. Maybe minor nitpicking.

30: Like a 29 but even rarer. Very little really differentiates values in the 29-30 range, it's more about how clean things went in round.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

LD is not policy, please do not treat it is as such. That said, speed is fine, provided it is necessary and not speed for speed's sake.

Analysis and critical thought is appreciated.

CX skills weigh heavily.

Topical, non-topical, progressive, narrative, debate the case you wish to debate, I'm happy to judge it.

Parent judge, three years experience. I don't care how fast you speak, as long as it is clear - don't mumble at your laptop. In general, I am not a fan of kritiks, if you want to use one make sure it is directly relevant to the resolution.

Above all else be respectful of your opponent - assertive is fine, rude and/or personal is not.

Danial Zane Davis:

Title & Experience:

Professional Development Specialist, Ewald Consulting, Saint Paul, MN.

Former Assistant Director of Speech & Debate & 7th Grade Logic & Language Arts Teacher, St. Croix Preparatory Academy (PREP), Stillwater, MN.

More than a decade coaching and judging Lincoln-Douglas and Policy (CX) at MN Speech & Debate Tournaments.

In high school in Nebraska, four years of (mostly Congress) debate alongside four years of forensics, especially extemporaneous and informative.

Background:

I'm an educator who has worked with middle school, high school, and adult learners in charter schools, public schools, and the private sector. My undergraduate education focused on literature, linguistics, philosophy, and history, while my Master's work is in education and natural and environmental sciences. Arguments that apply philosophy vaguely or incorrectly, arguments that abuse linguistics to make distinctions without meaningful differences, and arguments based on poorly understood or absent literary, historical, and/or scientific evidence will fall under the lightest scrutiny by your opponent. On the other hand, arguments that demonstrate sound philosophy, employ language meaningfully, and feature accurate or insightful references to literature, history, and/or scientific evidence will help you.

Style and rules:

I will say “clear” if a debater is incomprehensible. If I say "clear" twice, and the debater does not attempt to slow down or enunciate, I will stop flowing the speech. This automatically results in that debater losing the round. I can handle a reasonably fast debate comfortably, but I prefer L-D to be conducted at a conversational pace.

I prefer debates to be amicable intellectual competitions, so I don’t generally appreciate abusive behavior in rounds. However, I don’t mind emotional intensity, provided it subsides when the round concludes. I also welcome reasonable humor where appropriate.

I expect debaters to engage with their opponent’s arguments (read: clash), not merely to read blocks at each other. Thus, I do not appreciate attempts to win by "spreading" as many arguments as possible, hoping to overwhelm one's opponent with quantity instead of quality. This is a habit of poor CX debaters that occasionally rears its ugly head in L-D.

I am a flow judge, and I want to hear actual arguments, not buzzwords or empty tags. Don’t just say “extend my __ card.” Remind me what the card states. Don’t expect that I will fill-in the blank. Making and clarifying arguments is your job, not mine.

LD Judging Paradigm:

In short, I will hear any reasonable argument if you understand what you are reading and run it well across the flow. Make sure you read my "Background" paragraph if you want clarification on what "understand what you are reading" and "run it well" means.

Your value-premise is important. If you and your opponent have different, competing values, don’t automatically declare your values equal or identical and move-on. To weigh two competing value premises, I usually make a comparison between the achievement of similar positions.

The value-criterion is the vital weighing mechanism that allows me to see whether or not your contention-level arguments achieve your value-premise. With this in mind, I don’t like the trend of just running a "Standard" (that has infiltrated L-D from CX). While reasonable in theory, the practice usually leads debaters to have a value-premise without a concrete weighing mechanism--making it difficult to judge whether they achieves their own burden--or a weighing mechanism with no end goal--making even successful arguments lack a higher purpose, which seems contrary to the intellectual, philosophical, or moral duty implied by “ought” or “should” in an L-D resolution.

When determining the winner of a round, I will first judge if each debater has successfully addressed all of their opponent’s key arguments. This is not to say that I will vote against you if you drop an ancillary point in the 2AR. However, if you are deliberately dropping a significant argument, you should clearly explain why you are doing so, and you should ground your reasoning in sound evidence, philosophy, or theory. Further, if you want me to know that an argument is essential, you should highlight it via specific voting issues in the 2NR/AR.

If all arguments relevant to the round have been adequately addressed (or equally inadequately addressed), I will next examine whether each debater has successfully met their own burden. If you connect your framework with your contention-level arguments through explicit warrants and continue to make these connections clear across the flow, you are likely to win against an opponent who does not. If both debaters have done this (or both have equally failed), I will compare worlds to make my decision. I am open to debates concerning the role of the ballot, but if such a debate is absent, I will default to the above process.

If you intend to run a Plan or Counterplan, I expect you to explicitly link it to the Resolution and to ground it in a nuanced Value/Criterion Framework. Plans originated in CX, which places far less emphasis on the Value debate. While I am familiar with CX, it is distinct from L-D and for important reasons I don't need to enumerate here. Suffice to say, if you intend to use any CX-style argument in an L-D round, you must adapt it for the unique requirements of L-D.

I love a well-run K, as a good Kritik is rooted in a strong philosophical framework. Please note the qualifiers, “good,” “well-run,” and “strong philosophical framework.” For any additional clarification, see my "Background" paragraph. K’s can be permuted, but I need clear warrants as to why.

If you run T, it should be because something really isn't resolutional. Topicality is another CX argument that needs to be adapted for reasonable use in L-D.

I prefer that debates focus on the Resolution, but I will try to evaluate theory debates fairly. To be clear, however, my understanding of debate theory is basic, especially compared with TOC judges. (I have neither participated in nor coached TOC style L-D.) If the round comes down to a theory debate, it is the burden of the 2NR and the 2AR to make sure the theory arguments and the implications thereof are absolutely clear.

I don’t like to examine evidence after a round, but I have and I will if I think the in-round analysis of the evidence is inconclusive. I reserve the right to read whatever part(s) of the evidence I think are necessary to determine if it is taken out of context or interpreted badly enough to alter its meaning. I will hear challenges to the validity of evidence, but if a debater challenges the methodology of their opponent, they need to have their own methodology available for examination as well. If this is not the case, I will dismiss such a challenge.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy (CX) Paradigm:

Evidence:

Evidence is only one part of a debate. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I will not vote on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, don’t misrepresent your evidence or make it sound “bigger” than it really is.

Another area I think is important is the "citation debate." I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. If it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue.

I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. There may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond. I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX).

Speed:

When you are speaking at 300+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which leads to miscommunications later in the extension debate. To resolve this issue, articulate and speak slower in your presentation of signposts, claims, and citations. This shouldn't slow down your overall presentation by much, but it should make those “flow-able” points clearer. Additionally, I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't articulating, and if you continue to speak too fast, I'll just stop flowing. If you see this, you will probably lose the round, so make a conscious effort to accommodate my speed preference for the signposts, tags, and author last names at least. An optimal speed in these areas is around 200-250 wpm.

Persuasion:

As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). The most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture. Additionally, a big picture debate may be able to shore up some of the back-and-forth that takes place in the line-by-line debate, so if a debater doesn't directly respond to the Contention One, Subpoint A, little three, they can still show offense with a big picture/overview analysis of the entire subpoint or contention. However, as previously mentioned, if you drop case entirely, you need to have a really strong (Kritikal) reason for doing so (and even then links should include some direct references to case).

Preferences:

While I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some Topical awareness in a debate. I suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic at hand, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution.

My favorite debates are debates that are directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I love critical, topical Affs). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

The Ballot:

Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me. I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. As far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

I like to see arguments that are as comprehensible as they are compressed. Frequently I see competitors trying hard to rope provocative arguments together, but this often comes across as topical. On the other end, too many cards have led some cases into the mire. Moderation is best, well distributed cards (maximum 5 I think), one to two topical references, all focused well within the frame, presented with a calm assertive demeanor.

2024 update

I have been out of debate for about 5 years, but this paradigm holds true. End of the day, debate is about you as the debater and I as the judge will do my best to evaluate whatever you choose to do, so long as what you choose to do is not violent. Do you. I may be behind on some jargon so make sure you can explain your buzzwords and if you don't mind work into your top speed so I can acclimate (especially over Zoom!), but speaks will be highest for rounds where I get to see debaters doing what they are most comfortable with and doing that well, whether thats a K, LARP-y policy args, or theory. Strangely, the part of debate I miss most after these years is the ridiculous theory debates. Take that as you will, and Godspeed.

Danny.franksiegel@gmail.com

UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 2018

I enjoy a good K debate but I don't hack for the K. I don't love tricks as an argument style but a well explained trick can be fun to judge. When its frivolous I have a hard time buying theory, but will evaluate the debate nonetheless. Over the course of one tournament (Valley) I voted for the indexes a priori, Baudrillard, Kant, a LARP aff, and theory. If any of those things sound like arguments you read and you HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN WELL ENOUGH TO ME TO WARRANT MY BALLOT then pref me. If you do not believe you can have a good and nuanced debate where you explain the intricacies of your position to me, do not pref me highly, because when you don't explain things and your opponent does you will lose me quickly. The only exception to this is explicitly violent language, which I will not take kindly to/intervene against in extreme instances. This is the only scenario in which I will intervene. You can read the rest of my paradigm if you want to (if you are a theory debater trying to make a judgement call on whether to put me at a 1,2, or 3, you may want to read the TJFs/ Sliding Scale section below), because I do go more in depth on some things. But this should be the size of it.

Extra note: if you are debating a novice/debater without a lot of circuit experience, I won't force you to adapt to them, but an attempt to make the debate more accessible (this can look like slowing down, intentionally being forthcoming in cross, reading a position that is engagable, editing your case so that it can be read in an accessible way) I will bump speaks a bit.

YOUR ROUND IS ABOUT TO BEGIN AND YOU NEED TO KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS:

Plant ontology is a true arg. But so is T. Here we go...

tl;dr: do you.

I really don't care what you do. I'm good for all of it. As long as you are not actively offensive in the round. If you are/if someone asks you to stop doing something they perceive as violent and you blow it off/do not make an effort to change your behavior I will take your speaks I would've given, subtract 4, assign your speaks that number, and then wait that many seconds to talk to your coach after the round.

My Preferences/Things you should know about me:

-My pronouns are he/him. I will ask for your pronouns before the round (if I forget please remind me!). That is the most I will ask you to disclose about your personal identity unless you choose to do so later in the round. You do not have to tell me anything about yourself you don't want to.

-I'm kind of a point fairy in LD and more of a stickler in policy. I try to match my speaks to the average I perceive on the circuit.

-I judge a lot of theory debates but I don't love them. I'd much prefer to watch a K vs. K aff round. But since I keep getting preffed by theory kids I guess I'm ok for the theory debate tho. I'm even starting to enjoy watching good debaters go for theory...? But only when its done very well and not frivolous.

-If you read bad theory in front of me (I know this is arbitrary, but I tend to believe that most debaters know what this means and choose to ignore it.) and the other debater tells me to gut check it in any way shape or form, hold this L real quick.

-I will not vote on permissibility skep or any argument akin to "moral decisions are irrelevant," that is explained as "the holocaust/slavery could be good bc everything is true!!1!"

-If you are reading a strategy that doesn't make its arguments until the 1AR (ie you are spamming a speech doc with incoherent cards knowing the only one that matters starts with an R and ends with an odl) you and I will not get along. I'll vote for it if you're winning it, but I'll be unhappy. Caveat: if you're debating a novice/someone without much debate experience and your 1AR is all tricks, yes I'm giving the NR leeway.

-I cuss. A lot. Sorry in advance (and if you are legitimately uncomfortable let me know and I will control my language).

-Albums I'm listening to a lot of right now include but are not limited to: Astral Weeks by Van Morrison, Live in Amsterdam by Phish, Teenage Dreaming by Stranded Civilians (relatively short EP, very worth the listen!!), Close to the Edge by Yes, 10 Day by Chance the Rapper, Blue by Joni Mitchell. If you arrive early to a round and have music recommendations for me I will massively appreciate it :)

LARP

I did policy. I'll listen to your LARP args. Specificity on Politics links is usually where I end up pulling the trigger one direction or the other because most of the time they are either the best card in the DA or the worst card in the DA.

Consult/Process/Delay CPs are cheating, but strategic cheating that you have every right to run. But the more unfair your CP the less likely I am to vote against an equally unfair perm.

Idk how I feel about judge kick. I don't love it in theory, but I also don't know how it would interact with flipping the direction of presumption, so just if you want me to do it make the argument in round.

Framework

Not super familiar with a lot of super dense philosophy. That said, if you tell me what your offense is and why I care clearly in the last speech you've got my ballot. If my lack of philosophical knowledge is a hindrance to you winning, hinder that hindrance by being clear, making sense, impacting, and explaining (see Kant joke I'm doing my best to accommodate you phil hacks). I'm slowly but surely taking more phil classes in college so my knowledge base has broadened somewhat, but still, explain it to me and we'll all be happy.

Policy framework

It makes the game work. That said, I HATE listening to bad framework debates. If I can tell you're reading someone else's prewritten backfiles and you aren't doing it well speaks won't be great. If I can identify the person who wrote your prewritten backfile I will rate how much I like that person on a scale from 1-10 and give you that many speaks. I hate listening to prescripted crappy framework debates.

THAT SAID:

Watching LASA MS go for framework honestly was one of my favorite things to do, even though I usually ran things on the other side of it. Seriously framework can be an art form.

Topicality

T is a procedural and gets evaluated first, but if there is no analysis done beyond your generic blocks I'm gonna be sad and you will too when you see your speaks. Competing interps is my default, but I can be swayed otherwise easily. I try to only evaluate what's in the round. If the aff isn't topical read T. But after the 3rd or so T interp I/We meets become reasonable to me quickly... take that as you will.

Theory

Frivolous theory makes me sad but some theory is a necessary evil. That is about as straightforward as I can say. I will listen to your theory shell. But a counter interp explaining why your interp is absurd and your abuse scenario is contrived is gonna make you sad if you are reading a frivolous shell. That said, watching a good theory debater go to work is a thing of beauty and I guess I'll watch and evaluate as such. Side note: I don't understand the obsession with the counter interp "I defend the converse of the interp." It makes it harder for me as a judge to decide these debates because sometimes I have a tough time figuring out what the world of the counterinterp looks like. It also generally lets the person making the counterinterp shift a lot, which seems pretty unfair. I'll listen to the argument, but if your opponent calls you on it, it seems pretty tough to theoretically defend.

TJFs

I actually find these very convincing when deployed alongside a traditional util framework, and I think that these are a good way for LARP debaters to have a leg to stand on against unfamiliar phil positions full of tricks or Ks that you aren't familiar with. Do I think there's a theory debate to be had over them? Sure. Is it a debate I'm willing to listen to because I think these are a good practice, but there is plenty of theoretical reasons as to why they aren't? Totally. This is also how I approach most theory issues. I will do my best to do due diligence to both positions and hear them out, and legitimately want to hear the theoretical debate about practices that may be a gray area.

Sliding Scale (the shells listed in each section are examples of the stuff I'd put in each category):

Theory I like/would not mind hearing a debate about:

-TJFs Good/Bad

-Disclosure (with MATERIAL evidence proving a violation- I won't vote on something I can't confirm)

-The neg may not read a preclusive theory shell and read multiple counterplans that include the aff (this is an example of how a 1AR theory interp against an abusive neg strategy that would fare well in front of me would look).

Theory I don't like/Will begrudgingly listen to:

-ROB spec (this serves the purpose of policy framework on topics without an agent in my mind)

-AFC

-Ridiculous spec args (Reporter Spec was not quite in this category in my mind, but it was close. That should tell you what you need to know about this)

Theory I will gut check as soon as one side tells me to:

-ACC

-must say "bracketed" when reading bracketed card ie just noting it isn't enough (bracket theory can be in any one of these three categories depending on the context, but this version will almost always be here)

-must spec status in the speech

-all neg theory are counterinterps so they must win an RVI to be offensive

One final theory note: I'll vote on any theory, this is just a scale detailing the level of work you will have to do to make me want to consider pulling the trigger for you. Feel free to facebook message me/ask me at a tournament any questions about this scale.

Ks

This is my bread and butter, but if its not yours, DON'T DO IT!!! If you know DnG like the back of your hand I'll listen to whatever you have to say about God being a lobster and Rhizomes (but the mitochondria is still the powerhouse of the cell). Even just a well executed cap K or security K is dope. But if you get up there and say "his paradigm said read Ks Imma do the thing now" and have no idea whats going on all of us will be sad. So I'll reiterate. Do you. Not what you think I want to see. Performance is also really fun to judge, but make sure you're explaining and implicating well.

Arguments I like

- Delay CP

- Ship of Theseus procedural

- RodlRodlRodlRodlRodlRodl

- time cube

- thyme cube

- aspec/ospec double bind

- fiat double bind

- Antonio 95

Arguments I don't like

- true ones

- sarcasm bad

Additionally

Triadica Sebifera.

I enjoy more traditional LD and have been judging for 4 years on the local MN circuit.
1. If I cant hear you I can't score you.2. if I can't understand you I can't score you. This means I don't want to listen to word vomit. Make arguments not droning noises.3. Its varsity, I will only ask you once to speak up or slow down.4. I like logic.5. I don't understand theory or kritiks, So if you run it you will probably lose because it's an uphill battle.6. Ties go to neg because Aff has the burden of proving the resolution.

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program in Lakeville. I'm in my 9th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

I strongly believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and KNOW your case. This will guide my critique of your debate.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

If you plan to argue the resolution is unfair, I am not your judge. I believe it is a waste of time to complain about the resolution rather than doing what you should be doing, debating it.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. I expect you to take your RFD graciously as well as shake your opponent’s hand.

Thank you and Good luck!!

I debated LD for 3 years at Rosemount high school. I coached LD novices at Rosemount for 2 years. I think the best debates are the ones that are heavily involving the value and criterion. I think it is important to weigh all arguments, and to have clash against your opponent. One of my biggest criticisms in varsity debate is that the debate can often become unorganized, so I definitely value organization and it plays a large role into speaker points. I am okay with speed and theory, as long as they are used with a purpose and not just to impress me/ confuse your opponent. This said, I don't find frivolous theory useful. In order for the debate to remain clear for me, I need the upper level jargon terms to be defined by the debater, so that I can follow along. Since I work with novices, I am not always familiar with every term. I am okay with pretty much every argument, as long as it is not offensive. I do not appreciate rudeness either, please be respectful at all times to me and your opponent.

My history: I debated 4 years of Policy Debate at Bloomington Jefferson High School in Minnesota and 5 years of Varsity Policy for the University of Minnesota. I've been judging Lincoln Douglas and Policy for several years after that — most recently LD for about two years. I'm currently a sportswriter for the Athletic who focuses on the Vikings.

Email: arifmhasan AT gmail DOT com

Long story short: I was a middle-of-the-road college policy debater who judges and has judged for 12 years. I'm up for anything.

General: I have a slight bias for technical argumentation over anything else, and I love foundational claims that get to underlying assumptions. That doesn't have to mean critiques/kritiks; epistemic claims can be evidence-based observations grounded in traditional argument structures. Over time, I've become less of a sophist and have hard limits at blatantly offensive arguments. This doesn't apply to those who make missteps in wording or might be accidentally casual about an opponent's impacts, but rather those who are willing to ground their arguments in things like scientific racism, transphobia, etc.

Ways to get speaker points: being funny is good, trying to be funny and failing is bad. Like I said, I love technical argumentation, so great line-by-line debate is good for me. Impact analysis that clarifies the round in a meaningful way, especially with "even if" statements are very good. I'm a sportswriter, so relevant sports references might help.

Three things not up for discussion: temporal elongation of the round (not time limits, per se, but no way to have the round go longer than intended), speaker points (they are my call), and win/loss paradigm. There will be a team who loses and a team who wins.

Topic Familiarity: I am not familiar with this year's or this month's topic.

Theory/Cheap Shots: I am not afraid to vote on this, but I don’t think “arg not team” is a new argument in the final rebuttals — if you're running theory, anticipate this. Obviously impact comparison is important here as it is anywhere else.

My default impacts on theory if no one gives me any: a. Preserving debate is good b. Education is the most important standard.

If you are an obviously non-topical aff, I prefer you defend the practice of not being topical to trying to defend that you are topical. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive

Kritiks: Tell me how to use the ballot/give me a framework. I have no problem with negatives using their kritik as both a K of the aff and a K of framework, if it fits and the impacts make sense. I have probably judged kritiks in every major literature base for kritiks. Be specific, if possible.

Performance: I have coached and judged performance teams – they tend to win more than lose. Personally, I prefer fast technical debating, and I generally do not believe that speed is bad. If the performance is meant to be uncomfortable for me, explain why it was necessary.

I am a PF coach and former debater. I can handle some speed, but if you go super fast I will most likely miss things. Please don't run critiques. My preference is for debaters to just debate the resolution at hand. The most important thing to me is warrants, I want to hear why your argument is accurate, not just to be told that it is.

Finally if you try to go for a nuclear war impact on a resolution that doesn't directly relate to nuclear I will 100% vote against it.

I am a Tradition LD judge.

I do not care for Theory or Kritiks.  Debate the Resolution given.  No funny, crazy or wild stuff.

Speech speed - I Flow along with the Debate.  I suggest you do not Spread.  I am semi-fast but I want to make sure I get ALL of your case.  Please go slow over Author tags/cards/evidence, I don't want to miss giving an Author their due.  I do not want to see your case, your job is to tell me about it.  You will benefit from being well-spoken and limiting your speech speed. 

I am an expressive judge, you will know if you've lost me with your speed, speech clarity or funny stuff.  Take my cues and correct your actions.

Speaker points range from 27-29 usually.  I rarely give a 30.  Swear words or being abusive to your opponent are a no-no and will immediately go to 25 and continue to go lower if you behavior continues.

I expect you to respect your opponent and me. And my decision.  I am the "worst Judge ever" to at least one debater in this round. I am OK with that. 

Cover your case and your opponents.  Road map, sign post and voters are always a good thing.  If you feel the need to destroy or talk down to your opponent, I'm not your judge.

During cross-examination you will look at me, not at your opponent.  If I write during CX, that means I missed something in your speech.  CX is my favorite part of the Debate, please don't make me write.  If you bring what you've learned out of CX, that makes me happy.

Flex Prep - nope.  That is why you have a cross-examination.

I've found I dislike - "if you don't believe that Judge, then...," makes me feel like you are lying me.

I do not disclose.

Background. Total rounds debated in HS: 5 policy, 2 LD. Coach since 1987, policy and LD. B.A. double major history/economics, M.A. history. Currently teach AP US history, AP US government, AP Comparative Gov and AP Micro & Macro Econ. Published author (history). Mostly coaching novice in recent years, so probably a few years behind in national circuit trends. I'll listen, but they may need more explanation.

(Update January 2024: I have not been coaching this year and will be a bit rusty. Not clueless, but any new theories or trends will need a bit more explanation. My flowing speed may also be down about 5-10%.)

I'd prefer not to be on an email chain. I want to listen to the arguments. You also increase the chance for me to intervene if I think your evidence is lined down in a sketchy or unethical way.

I believe that the debaters should be allowed to debate the arguments that they think are best suited to the resolution and the opponent's arguments. Semi-tabula rasa, probably default to comparative worlds unless you give me a reason not to. Feel free to do so.

While I will attempt to render a fair ballot on whatever arguments are presented in the round, I do have some policies or preferences.

I contend that debaters should actually sound like they know what they are talking about. With novice debaters I will act as a patient teacher. With varsity debaters I will have less sympathy with a debater who is reading a position they clearly do not understand.

Debates should feature clash, and both debaters have an obligation to argue positions which are open to clash. Ideally, these positions should at least attempt to engage the resolution. I will listen to narratives, but as these generally avoid clash on anything but a theory level, they are less preferred. I am not fond of narratives or other positions that essentially guilt the judge into voting for a debater. Just because I didn't vote for your narrative doesn't mean I reject you or your identity or your position. It is not ok to equate my ballot with me being an oppressor. Plans and counterplans are valid in LD debate, but they must be run properly. I judged (nat circuit) policy from 1997 to 2009, if that's any help.

I will listen to theory positions and enjoy a well thought out theory debate. Kind of. I insist that you actually engage the theory debate on its merits. I dislike rounds in which a ton of theory crap is tossed out hoping the opponent will miss some tiny little spike which is then blown up to monumental proportions in rebuttals. Just because you call something an absolute voting issue doesn't mean it is. I am much more likely to vote for a person winning on the substantive issues even if they allegedly mishandled the third subpoint on an RVI.

I will be extremely reluctant to "drop the debater" except in cases of in-round misconduct. Debate is about arguments, not people. A claim of "drop the debater" better have a lot of support and can't just be one more response on your list of bullet points. I will consider intervening against this argument.

I am willing to listen to other pre-fiat arguments such as Kritiks. Again, you need to understand the position and it should be germane. I tend to believe that most kritiks should have a viable alternative, but would be willing to listen to a claim that they don't.

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how your treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Aisha Mohamed

I am a studying Political Science, and Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature at the U of M. I was an LD debater in high school for four years and was the captain my senior year. I mostly competed on the local circuit but I am knowledgeable about national circuit practices as well. 

I look at and teach LD with a very clear system of links in mind: Resolutional Action --> Contentions (Reasons why RA is good) --> Criterion --> Value --> Resolutional Value Word or Interp (Morally, Justified, Ought, etc.). Especially at varsity levels, I expect you to be able to provide offense in the round not only through your cards and contentions but also through links from those to your criterion and value. One of the universally weakest links I see in most LD debates is links from contention/card level to framework, so if you can pull that through and impact back to framework and resolution, you'll win me over. Don't just read cards at me; I expect you to do the work to tell me why they matter.

I will vote on whoever makes the better arguments and can defend them. This means I am okay with kritiks, CPs, theory, etc as long as you run them well--meaning everyone in the round can understand your argument and you can explain why I should vote for it. 

I am ok with speed but be clear. I will signal if you are unclear. Please slow down on tags, important warrants, and signposting. 

Finally, conduct in round is very important to me. If you are racist, sexist, or discriminatory, I will vote you down. Please don't be obnoxious to me or your opponent or it will hurt your speaker points even if I vote for you. 

All in all, be good people who debate well and we will get along.

I religiously believe in Thomas Malthus' systemic theory of population as the only value in this life and the previous. Human morals are the sole obstacle to mankind's progress and therefore any preventive measure successfully argued by any debater will have the winning edge. Furthermore, any word of disagreement will promptly result in the automatic loss for the opponent. 

Thank you for reading and I wish you the best of luck in your rounds! 

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

Parent judge, three years experience. I don't care how fast you speak, as long as it is clear - don't mumble at your laptop. In general, I am not a fan of kritiks, if you want to use one make sure it is directly relevant to the resolution.

Above all else be respectful of your opponent - assertive is fine, rude and/or personal is not.

You may know me previously as Caitlin Smith or Caitlin Addleman. She/her pronouns.

Experience:

I coached with the University of Minnesota (fall 2017 - 2022). I debated 4 years (2013-2017) of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College and 4 years of LD in high school. I have also coached policy at the UMN and LD at Apple Valley High School.

Ethics:

I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I take my role as an educator seriously, which means I am always happy to chat about or answer any questions related to debate, from theory to substantive arguments. Additionally, I consider the moral/ethical questions of debate to be a constitutive feature of the activity. As such, I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. I will, and have (albeit rarely), voted down arguments that I consider to be seriously morally problematic, regardless of what’s on the flow. While my standard for doing so is high, I take as axiomatic that every person has intrinsic and immutable worth - if I feel that your advocacy or representations seriously impinge on the worth of someone in the room, that will affect my decision. This does not mean that I won’t vote for arguments I don’t like or ethically agree with (I do that all the time); rather, I simply will not hold myself to voting on the flow if I feel someone in the room is being done violence. If you have any questions about my standards or threshold, please ask me.

A Note on Tech:

I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate). Put simply, substance > tech > truth.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please be aware of how the online nature of debate constrains speed by paying attention to whatever chat feature we have available for people saying speed or clear - and please make accommodations as necessary. Please say all plans/CP’s/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice.

Weighing:

Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to, although in absence of any weighing arguments, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I have broad knowledge of economic and policy issues (my knowledge skews more heavily towards the K). Thus, I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If you’re clear, there shouldn’t be a problem, just don’t expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponents’ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesn’t mean don’t read theory in those situations, but that, if you’re going to, I will hold you to a high standard. Finally, I have a lower threshold than most parli judges for we-meets: if they meet the text of your interpretation, I do not consider a remaining violation to be a priori offense (as in, it’s still offense, but without an interpretation it does not function a priori, absent additional arguments that it should). If you have questions about what this means, let me know.

Kritiks:

I debated lots of K’s and write lots of them with my team. I love them. I particularly love when they are clear on what the alt does and what a world of the alternative looks like. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature (just because I read K’s doesn’t mean I will understand your K) . I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I don’t mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what I’m supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I don’t say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health and I want competitors to be aware.

Speaker Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them. ????

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

I am the head of LD debate at Maple Grove HS. I have been coaching for 7 years and competed in LD at Robbinsdale Armstrong High School.

Engage with the topic, impact to a v/c or standard. I don't appreciate offense that doesn't engage with the resolution, such as many theory arguments, but sometimes these sort of arguments are necessary in response to abuse. That being said I'm fine with unique approaches or worldviews as long as they are answering the resolution.

Speed is fine assuming you have the enunciation to go with it. In particular, make sure to say card names clearly.

For PF please do not try to shift your approach to fit an LD paradigm, run what you normally would and I'm probably fine with it.

I very rarely give verbal critiques or disclose.

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

Email: joshyou12@gmail.com

I did LD at Lakeville North from 2009-2013 and coached LD at Apple Valley from 2013-2017. I also did NPDA-style college parli from 2013-2017.

Overview:

• In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that uses the topic lit. I tend to enjoy "policy" arguments and moral philosophy debates the most.
• I have only judged 1-2 tournaments a season since the 2017 school year so I might not be familiar with latest LD lingo. Minneapple 2021 is the first tournament I've judged in approximately one year.

Speed/clarity:

• I value clarity very highly, both in terms of enunciation and adequately explaining arguments. I deeply dislike judging rounds that I can't understand for one reason or another. I have more to say about this in the theory and K sections but please understand that I promise to reward clarity and punish lack of clarity, so it is in your interest to make sure I understand you.
• All that said, speed is fine per se.
• I won't look at speech docs before the end of the round.

Theory:

• I'll vote on theory if you win it. But I'd rather not hear theory most of the time, so if I think your shell is frivolous you'll get lower speaks and I'll have a low threshold for responses to it. This also applies to ACs that are loaded with spikes/paragraph theory.
• It is in your best interest to explain arguments well and not dump a lot of one-liners that I will struggle to get on my flow. I rarely catch more than half of the arguments in a theory underview, and the ones I do get down are usually unwarranted or underwarranted. "Concession" by your opponent will mean very little if anything in these scenarios.
• I'm not really a fan of the RVI despite not liking theory. If you can beat back a frivolous theory shell quickly I would prefer you go back to substance.

Kritiks/critical stuff:

• I’m fine with Ks in principle but in practice many suffer from inadequate explanations of content and function. I have very little patience for sophistry or obfuscation and I will not hesitate to discount or disregard arguments that are not sufficiently clear. If you absolutely need to read a dense or jargon-heavy card, then the tag should be in plain language, define the key words or phrases in the card, and explain the argument in enough detail to be understood.
• I won't necessarily intervene against performance and non-topical affs but I'm pretty inclined to think the aff has to be topical.
• It's totally fine to argue that a given round should be dedicated to thinking about how to combat a certain type of oppression but for hopefully obvious reasons I will not take that to mean that only impacts to a specific demographic group matter when evaluating the policy/method/whatever being debated.

Policy arguments:

• I love good util/policy-style debate. However, I find bad util debates annoying to judge since I often have to intervene to resolve them. If you want to avoid that, then develop and weigh your impacts. All util debates are math problems, treat them as such.
• Your evidence almost certainly doesn't say that you control 100% of your terminal impact and I will pay attention to that, even if your argument is conceded.
• On the same note, I tend to discount poorly-justified big-impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not synonymous). I am not biased against extinction arguments (the opposite, really) but I also prefer smart arguments.
• I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic lit. Unfortunately many recent LD topics have featured hyper-specific/unbalanced plans and I am pretty receptive to T in those cases.

Counterplans:

• I really like good plan/counterplan debates and I think the neg should nearly always run a counterplan. As for theory, I am annoyed by lot of PICs (specific interps/counterinterps are good here) and strongly dislike agent CPs (no need for specificity as they're all bad). I lean towards condo good.

Framework/philosophy:

• I'm fine with philosophy-heavy cases as long as they're well explained. I like good framework debates but I prefer frameworks that allow for interesting contention-level debates (I'm not saying you have to engage on the contention level, but it's a good heuristic for whether your framework is "tricky" or "squirrelly").
• I default to thinking that intuitively good/bad things really are good/bad. I appreciate good counterexamples/intuition pumps. Making your opponent's framework sound silly in cross-ex will help your speaks a lot.
• If the framework debate or the contention debate under the winning framework is ambiguous, I default to accounting for moral uncertainty.
• I dislike theoretical (that is, debate theory) framework justifications.

Speaker points:

• You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
• You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
• I'll do my best to calibrate my speaks with the overall judge pool but it's possible my speaker points won't quite keep up with point inflation now that I'm not judging very often.

Misc:

• To the extent that extensions are a mere formality (e.g. when there is no clash on an entire layer of the debate) I'm not picky about them at all and you can be extremely brief but they definitely matter if you want to do warrant comparison and weighing.