Zakariya Abdullahi

Political Science w/ a concentration in Public Policy Major, Augsburg University 

Coach, Highland Park Senior HS

Abdullaz@augsburg.edu

Background: I did Policy Debate at Roseville Area High School. I am currently a student at Augsburg University majoring in Poli Sci, might also drop a Religion minor in there. Other than that, I am a coach at Highland Park Senior HS. 

Comments: 

• Speed should be inversely proportional to the complexity of the argument. I try to make it as visible as possible when you've lost me, so look up occasionally.
• I don't flow Cross-x, so if you want something to be on the flow for the round, say it in a speech.
• I am open to any argument as long as it flows well together, it is clear and well thought-out.
• I like seeing clashes in the round. Especially in CX. 
• Being kind to each other. I wouldn't vote you down simply because I don't like you, but, if you're a jerk your speaker points will suffer for your actions. 
• Time yourselves!

Remember to have fun, it is a learning experience. 

.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Updated 2/7/24

Minneapolis South '17 || University of Minnesota '21

Coach at Minneapolis Edison HS Fall '17 - Spring '20 || Part-time Coach at UMN Fall '21 - Present

Email: josiahferguson3.14@gmail.com Yes put me on the email chain, feel free to email me any questions. Currently work for a city civil engineering department, was a 2A for most of my debate career.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

Cliff Notes:

HS: low topic knowledge, Judged 5 round on this topic.

College: Fairly high topic knowledge, been doing some work for UMN, judged 47 debates so far, debated NFU in '18-'19 season. I value debates that show off your knowledge of the topic.

Speed, good if clear, warrant dense and slow > fast nonsense, I flow on paper so I need pen time.

FW v. k aff, yes fairness is an impact, but often a small one. K aff can win, but probably needs some explanation of the role of the negative (and how they can reasonably accomplish this role).

Longer version:

About Me:

I debated 592 rounds (30 middle school, 275 high school, 287 college) and have judged 334 (59 middle school, 130 High School, 125 College), best result: octa-finalist at the 2021 NDT.

Debate is an educational activity. My role as a judge includes being an educator. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you feel welcome and safe.

I value clarity over speed, I still flow on paper so I need pen time and clear communication on what you want me to write down. I usually flow straight down.
Default to tech > truth, though truth often determines how much tech you need. I usually evaluate most args probabilistically on offense vs defense.

Specific arguments:

T vs K affs - Yes. Fairness is probably an impact, though fairly small, clash is about the only other impact worth saying, the neg probably needs some way to mitigate aff offense including: TVA, switch side or process over content. Aff’s should probably have a model of debate, as it is difficult to convince me that an activity that you devoted your time to is wholly bad. Having a clear role for the neg can help against fairness and clash offense. Procedure based DAs to FW are better than content ones.

K vs Policy - Cap or security probably best k options in front of me. I’m fine for some specific Ks, but I haven't read much of the lit in depth. I’m ok for identity Ks (antiblackness, gender, queerness) in that I have a base level of understanding but have a prety high threshold for ontology claims. I’m not good for Baudrillard, Bataille, D&G or Nietzsche, etc. I have a high threshold for no Ks FW on the aff, easily win that you get to weigh the aff, though what that means is up for debate, and should be explained. Please impact out what I should do if you win your interp on FW. Much prefer a push on consequncialism good to just a push on extinction outweighs.

T v Policy - Default to T a priori. Standards with warrants are needed in the 1NC. Tell me what reasonability means and why it is good beyond the generic one liner if you want me to vote on it (ie 1-2 minutes of the 2ar + 2-3 sentences in each speech before then). Think of reasonability as going for presumption, you shouldn't do it often and when you do it should be the focal point of your speech.

Theory/CP - most condo is probably good, types of CPs, and solvency advocates matter more than just the number of condo, though I will vote on condo. I have found myself voting aff on condo more than I would like - 2nr please include neg flex, fairness outweighs and dispo fails. Love a good Adv CP out of a non-intrinsic advantage. 2NC counterplans out of straight turns are probably somewhat bad (Still worth saying, just not as your only answer).
PIC/Ks - aff should be able to defend their plan/advocacy, other pics are debatable.
Perm do the CP is good against process CPs, Default to reject the arg except for condo. International fiat probably bad, multi actor is debatable. Theory args like consult bad are best used as a justification for PDCP. Perm do both needs a net benefit, often a solvency deficit, please compare this with the DAs to the perm.
Yes judge kick unless 2AC or 1AR starts the debate on this, then up for debate, but still lean neg. Neg, you don't need to tell me to kick it, I will do so if it helps you.

DA/Case - I evaluate probabilistically, so unlikely to win zero risk unless major drop. Default to uniqueness controlling link. Threshold for thumpers is determined by the broadest link argument extended, so if you have a more specific link it can backfire to extend the more general one.
Case debate good, do it more. UQ is a squo solves/solvency deficit unless paired with theory.
I follow politics quite closely, so if you mess up the swing votes on your ptx DA I will be annoyed.

Impact framing - Risk = Magnitude x Probability, so structural violence can outweigh. probability is usually determined based on how well it is debated. Lean 10% chance of 99% dead outweighs 1% risk of 100% dead, but needs an explanation.

Hello! I've been the Teacher Coach at Central for the better part of the last eight years. I have no prior debate experience, and as such I tend to judge only Rookie and Novice rounds. Here are a few things you should know:

-If you're reading unclearly, I'll ask you to slow down. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't put your arguments on my flow

-Clash is extremely important. Make sure you are able to argue directly against what your opponent is saying

-I'm old school. If you're the aff, you need to win all stock issues

-You need to be really, REALLY convincing (basically perfect) to argue T against a plan from the packet

-If your terminal impact is nuclear war or extinction I will be very curious as to your thought process. And no, nuclear weapons being used DOES NOT lead to total extinction. If it did, we'd be extinct

Have a good one, and I'll see you in round.

-Jents

I consider myself an open judge that tries to endorse a "tabula rosa" methodology in judging. However, there are some arguments that are tougher to win in front of me, but not impossible. 

Theory debates:

I don't prefer to listen to debates about theory, but it is a legitimate strategy against some affs/negs. If this is a 2nr/2ar option for you, you need to be explicit about impacts and why it is a voter and you should win the round over it. Saying the phrase "T is a voter for fairness and education" is insufficient for me to vote on T. You need to tell me what happens if x aff or y kritik is allowed and why I should care about that impact. If not provided any other reason, I typically default to believing that deliberation over anything reasonably topical is better education than theory, and that education usually is more important than limits or fairness, but it's not hard to convince me otherwise, I'm just providing an idea of how I would reason about a debate with little clash that is hard to resolve strictly through the flow. I think that framework args along the lines of "you don't get a kritik" are generally unpersuasive, but I suppose it could be if someone articulated it well enough. I think that 2-3 condo is probably fine, but more than that borders ridiculous.

Kritiks / affs not using USFG:

I don't have a problem voting up teams that don't read a plan, so long as there are impacts and reasons to do so. I am what you would call "K friendly", insofar as I enjoy listening to legitimate clash debates having to do with kritikal theory. To get me to vote down a team on framework or T, I think that a persuasive argument is to provide a T version of the aff which shows that they can make roughly the same arguments but matching your interpretation.

Args that are tough to win in front of me:

• T against affs that are clearly core of the topic. 
• Fwk that says the neg can't read kritiks
• Nonsense politix DA's that need 3 internal links to get anywhere.

UPDATE:

I am a current graduate student @ UCLA in Asian American Studies. I am a community organizer who focuses on Southeast Asian issues, specifically deportation. My research is about the prison abolition, critical refugee studies, women of color feminism. I am updated on more critical literature as a result of being in grad school, but less on this debate topic.

I will be frank, I have not judged a debate in about a year (1st year of grad school). I would suggest you take this all with a grain of salt.

If you have questions before the round don't be afraid to ask!

Bio:

Debated for Bloomington Jefferson from 2011-2015.

I coached for Minneapolis Washburn: 2016-2018.

Here is a little about myself:

-I use they/them/theirs pronouns. Know it!

- I have judged about 20ish debates this season. I have not been traveling with the Washburn team this year. I have mostly been judging in Minnesota.

-I did "kritical/performance" debate in high school but this does not mean I will NOT vote for framework. I would recommend running arguments that you enjoy and are comfortable with in front of me.

-I was a 2A for 3 years in school but then switched to be a 2N.

-I would like to be added to the email chains before the round my email is turtlewalker10130@gmail.com

-I like to flow on paper, so please share some flow with me!!!!!!!! I will just flow on my cpu, but I flow worst on it tbh. Maybe share some pens with me too lol.

- I will probs be a point fairy @blake 2017 cuz I have judge a lot of bad debate this season without clash.

Things that I find important:

-Clarity. If I cannot understand you then I will not be flowing.

-Warrants. Tell me the reasoning behind your arguments. Do not just say “You don’t get a perm it’s a method debate” tell me why they don’t the perm.

-Do some impact calc, cuz why wouldn't you...

Case: NEVER FORGOT THE CASE DEBATE! You speaker points will be higher if you have a great case debate. I love me some good impact turns. DON'T READ STUFF LIKE RACSIM GOOD

Flashing:I prefer email chains tbh. I do not count flashing as prep unless used excessively. I know when your stealing prep just don’t do it if you do it will probs lower you speaker points I will start your prep. As stated above I want to be on the email chain.

Kritiks/Performance: I love a good K debate. K turns the case is my shit. You just have to give me a good explanation of the Kritik interacts with the AFF. You should explain the K not just use blipy K words. As stated above I have did performance debate my senior year in high school. If your reading a Kritical AFF I think the 1AC should be resolutional. If the 1AC isn't resolutional give me a reason why it isn't and why its important. I read arguments like queer theory, afro-pess, security, cap, fem, etc.

For alts, I would like to understand how it works. Material examples are always good and helpful. Most theory is written about real world shit, bring it back to that.

I read a good sum, but I am no expert. High theory args from European philosophers might have to do more work to get my ballot - meaning explain your shit. If you cannot explain that K or the alt to a working class person of color on the street, maybe don't read it infront of me or work on your explination.

Topicality: I view T as a DA. That the interp is just the link and the standers the impacts. I don't really like judging these debates, but they are necessary!!!!

DA: Anything can be a DA. I like a good DA debate but personally I find the politics debate to be boring use this information as you will. *UPDATE* PLTX IS GREAT I INTERN AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND FELT POWER IN MY HANDS. In high school, I thought the pltx da was gross, till this summer. While intern I helped with the nomination of the 10th Librarian of Congress, so I got a first-hand exp. of my boss using her pull cap.

CP: CP are chill. A good completive CP can reck people. PROBS NEEDS A N/B

Theory: My thresh hold for theory debates is kinda of high. I will probs not vote on unless the clearly drop condo bad.

Framework: Framework is how you frame your work. LOL, but for real I will vote for Framework. Most people I feel don't read framework well thought. Framework debates just become clash of civ. debates and it's hard to win framework if you don't answer the aff.

IS DEBATE A GAME. IS IT NOT A GAME. WHAT IS DEBATE IDK YOU TELL ME.

To me, framework seems to always come down to which model of debate is better.

FINAL NOTE: Have fun. Say funny shit. Make jokes. You should be having fun when you debate because if you aren’t when why are you debating. I am a human being at the back of the room. I think this something that is important to me. I feel like a lot of the national debate community is now hyper-focused on wins. I wish students don't feel so much stress from this activity. I want everyone to have fun!

I did policy debate throughout high school and college, and I like seeing a variety of different strategies in rounds.

My hope is that teams who feel more comfortable running traditional policy arguments, and teams who like to run critical arguments, both feel that they can do either when I judge their round. In other words, I do my best to be a blank slate. I have some background in critical theory (and to be straightforward, I'm fond of critical theory), but I expect critical arguments to be adequately explained in round: I will try not to connect the dots for you. I've been told that I have a higher tolerance for a wide variety of arguments -- I'll vote on theory, or ASPEC, or OSPEC, or FX T (etc.) if the opposing team doesn't do a sufficient job defending. Tag-team cross-ex is okay with me.

What I appreciate:

• when you tell me where to flow your arguments
• when you sign post and give road maps
• a good overview when you have the time for it
• clear extensions and cross-applications
• creative and witty arguments (but don't feel forced to come up with a creative argument just for my sake)
• when spreading is reasonably clear
• when teams do explicit impact calculus and/or framework
• when teams show respect for each other and are good sports

Generally, I like that debate is a strategic game with few overt rules. I do my best not to impose disadvantages upon teams who make certain arguments just because the arguments are uncommon, or are typically perceived as being too technical.

If I'm judging your round and it's LD, please understand that I will do my best to follow what you're saying, but that I'm less familiar with the finer points of LD (like meta-ethics) than your typical LD judge. If you run these sorts of arguments, a little extra explanation goes a long way.

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

I am an X's and O's judge and I make my decision on the flow.

I debated in high school and in college.

I keep a clean flow and generally vote on dropped or mishandled arguments.

I can flow at any speed but I am not impressed by debaters who do not think it is important to be clear.

I rarely ever need to call cards.

Probably about average threshold for framework against Affs with no plan text.

he/him

noberly@uchicago.edu

Background

I am a former debate coach and high school teacher, and I have been the program director the Minnesota Urban Debate League. Currently, I am a technical lead for a software company.

Basics

Whether you win or lose will depend primarily on whether you can tell me a coherent narrative of why you should win. In the second rebuttal, you need to be able to give me a brief, relatively jargon-free, overview of how all the arguments you are going for fit together.

Specific issues:

Exclusivity/Elitism in the debate community. This is my number one concern about this activity. If you are making an argument, advocating a methodology, using a presentation style, or doing anything else that is exclusionary and the other team calls you out on it, I am very likely to vote on this over any other issue. More debate for more students is my primary motivation for participating in this activity, and if the other team convinces me that you hurt participation, I will vote you down.

Education. This is my second priority. Outside of framework debate (see below), this primarily means that you need to demonstrate to me that you have mastered your arguments. This means not relying on cards or pre-written blocks as a crutch. It also means being able to explain your arguments at varying levels of complexity. If you can’t make a Thing Explainer version of your argument, you should think hard about whether you really understand it. Lastly, valuing education means I think that a well-explained analytic is as good as most carded evidence.

If education is a voting issue for your framework arguments, you need to explain exactly how your advocacy does a better job than the other team at educating people about an important issue. This also means you need to justify why that issue is important.

Framing. By framing, I mean the ethical principles I use to weigh competing outcomes. In the absence of any argument about what principles I should use, I will default to consequentialist impact calculus. That said, you should know that I am likely to discount claims about magnitude relative to probability and timeframe. You are better served to focus on the link and internal link debate than on terminal impacts.

If you don't think my default framing is good for your arguments, you need to offer an alternative version. If there's a disagreement between the teams about which frame I should use to evaluate impacts, you should spend time on that debate, because I will evaluate the framing debate before I evaluate any impacts.

Framework. By framework, I mean decision rules about what types of speech acts should be given weight within a debate round. This includes arguments like Role of the Ballot, Topicality, and whatever you call That Thing Your Read Against K Affs. Absent an alternative presented in the round, I will default to role playing a policymaker.

As with framing, if you don't think policymaker is a good framework for considering your arguments, you should present an alternative one. If you win any argument about the appropriate framework to use, I will use the framework you presented as I understand it. You can win the framework debate by demonstrating that your framework does a better job, on balance, at achieving these goals:

• Improving the climate of the debate community to make it more welcoming, accessible, and inclusive

• Educating the debaters, judge, and any audience members

I am unlikely to vote on fairness or abuse arguments unless it is an internal link to improving access or education.

Performance Debate. All debate is a performance. If you are trying to gain some offense from the specific nature of your performance, I will treat it exactly as I treat framework generally, which means you’ll need to demonstrate how your performance makes debate more accessible and/or more educational.

Tabula Rasa. I am not artificially tabula rasa. This means there are a lot of things I genuinely don’t know about, but that I won’t pretend that I’m ignorant about issues I am familiar with. If you have a card that makes a factually incorrect claim and the other team makes any kind of coherent challenge to it, I will likely not consider that card at all. If you make an analytic argument that is premised on something factually incorrect, I won’t consider it even if the other team never addresses it.

Specific issues which might plausibly come up in a round and about which I have substantial expertise based on my academic and professional background include: statistical analysis, US state and federal government procedure, US national politics, US history and prehistory, human geography, macroeconomics, and AI/machine learning. If you make a factual error in any of these areas, I am very likely to notice.

Kritiks. I am unlikely to be familiar with the details of your kritiks or the authors on which they are based. This means you cannot rely on me to read between the lines and give you credit for an argument that you didn’t make explicitly. If you have a hard time explaining your K to me, that's a good sign that either you don't understand it yourself, or there isn't any real substance to it. Either way, I'm not likely to vote on it.

Speaker Points. 30 means I think you are the best speaker at this tournament. 29 means I think you deserve win a top 10 speaker award. 28 means I think you might deserve to win a speaker award, but I’m not sure. 27 means I think you don’t deserve to win a speaker award. 26 means I think you don’t deserve to win a speaker award, and I’m going to make sure of it. Anything less means that you were insufferably obnoxious or endangered the physical or emotional well-being of other people in the room.

Background: 4 years of high school debate in the Chicago Debate league and a Critical Theory concentrator in college. Coached middle and high school policy debate on and off for 4 years.

Flow: I am a flow judge but often times the way you signpost, vocalize, and pause will help me create a good flow.

Okay with speed just slow down on the tags and authors especially if you do heavy lie by line

Policy focused will consider Ks

Prefer identity, power, causation Ks > language Ks

The K must have a strong link and impact that outweighs the links and impacts on the aff

No prefs on CPs

No prefs on TOP

Hello, I'm Jamie Snoddy (pronounced like snotty, but with the [d] sound). I'm a community coach for Patrick Henry HS and also a coach at the University of Minnesota. I did a year of debate at Patrick Henry and debated two years for UMN. I graduated in 2018 with a Bach. in Linguistics (Puns get you extra speaks). Please add me to the email chain with the following email address: snodd003@umn.edu

Overview

Learning is the main focus of debate. I like arguments to be presented in a clear and logical manner (it can even be flawed logic, as long as it's coherent and feasible, I think it's legit.). So, there aren't many things I'm against teams running. TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR PLZ! Impact Calc and Roll of the ballot args are great.

Place a higher precedence on presenting evidence clearly and consistently (so not reading things incoherently fast unless e.v.e.r.y s.i.n.g.l.e t.h.i.n.g. is in your speech doc. Which it shouldn't be. If I'm not looking at you and typing, you're good. If I'm looking at you and leaned back, I'm waiting for flow-able info. If I'm looking at you and nodding I'm listening to good points that I feel have already been flowed.

Full disclosure: I'm a sucker for wipeout/death good args, idc which side it is lbvs. Maybe it's the high school emo in me. Best way to combat these args, to me, is go all into VTL and some change better than no change and, if applicable, the ppl who are getting effed over by sqou violence still don't want to die... then that gets into cruel optimism, yada yare yare.

Case

I'm fine with no plan affs. You just have to reeeeeally be ready to answer FW and T. You need to convince me of why running this aff w/o a plan will not work within the resolution. I'm a former 2A so sympathize with defending your case baby from the big scary neg lolz jk.

CPs

As long as the Neg can keep track of all the CPs they have, have all the cps you want. Just be ready to defend needing all of the cps if the aff chooses to go that route. Condo... is... a thing... I guess. The more cps you have, the high chance I'll believe condo bad args, cuz having that many multiple worlds is sorta abusive. So if you're running 7 or 8 cps, they better be dispo or uncondo, or have really great answers for why having that many condo worlds is necessary...

DAs

Fine and necessary args in policy.

Ks

Great! I love Ks and really love non-basic Ks. I don't like flimsy, vague alts. Even if it is as simple as Reject "x", I need to know what exactly what the world of the alt will look like and why it should be preferred to the aff's.

T

Topicality, to me, is different than theory (I flow them sep) and as long as voters are attached to it, I'll consider the args.

Theory

Is a prior question and needs to be addressed before talking about anything else. If we can't agree on how we talk to each other, then what does anything we say matter? ROB args are persuasive if voters are attached to it.

Speaker Points

Switching between hs and coll. debate sometimes throws me of, but I try to be really generous with them? If you're chill, courteous and not a butt during a round you get higher speaks.

Cutting people off aggressively and being unnecessarily snarky looses you speaks. I get if you're having a bad day or are going through some things that it may get taken out here in our community. If that's the case, just give the people in your round a heads up that you're in a mood.

I am new to judging MN policy debate (as of fall 2017) but I have been coaching and judging CX since 2002 when I was a social studies teacher for NYCBOE at The Beacon School.

I am a lifelong learner. I am definitely more IB than AP. I am still learning the norms of judging in the twin cities and and the region. I am looking forward to learning more about how best to support every young person engaged in forensics to not only more fully engage in the activity but find personal transformation thru their experiences.

i am also mindful of the complex terrain of the contemporary and offer this quote from Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man to clarify:

Once I saw a prizefighter boxing a yokel. The fighter was swift and
amazingly scientific. His body was one violent flow of rapid rhythmic action.
He hit the yokel a hundred times while the yokel held up his arms in
stunned surprise. But suddenly the yokel, rolling about in the gale of boxing
gloves, struck one blow and knocked science, speed and footwork as cold as a
Well-digger's posterior. The smart money hit the canvas. The long shot got the
nod. The yokel had simply stepped inside of his opponent's sense of time.

 Questions? Read the book  

next...

im brainstorming arguments for my team at Saint Paul Central as follows:

 https://prezi.com/m/fdbmbmjmc9g6/stanley-fish-is-there-a-text-in-this-class/

The basic outline for a Kritikal aff/neg for city udl champs and maybe for varsity States. 

 It is a Kritik of the meaning being embedded in the text.  

In a world where there is a email thread with all the evidence available to everyone no one is actually listening to the debate. 

No one is flowing what the debaters say

Rather both teams and THe JUDGe(s) are using the thread as a crutch to create their own "idealized" or "optimized" or, worst of all, "True" version of what each speech is supposed to be saying (rather than what they are actually saying.)

There are multiple universes and impacts and interpretations at that point which explode the possibility of understanding and that destroys....

 Education

Grounds

Fairness

Etc

Etc

Etc

The RFD (Voters, Plan, moral obligation land framing and framework and role of the ballot) should be based on 

1) the words uttered in the round by the debaters

And, only if necessary,

2) fallback to the authored evidence underlying the tag for your evidence AND any impact calculus you offer to clash with and outweigh the other team  

To make a long story short:

if you do your work well I will quote you word for word in my RFD because you explained to me (the judge) why your arguments (from the constructives and thru to the rebuttals)  based upon your evidence have greater impact(s). 

Otherwise it's a free for all. And no one wants that. Especially you.