Background - I was a policy debater at Rosemount high school for four years, including being a policy debate captain my junior and senior years. While at Rosemount, I debated at both local and national circuit tournaments. I am previously worked as a coach at Farmington High School in (you guessed it) Farmington Minnesota. Presently, I'm in Moorhead at MSUM. I have judged high school tournaments before, mostly policy, but also a tiny bit of LD and like two rounds of PF.

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. ericabaumann27@gmail.com

My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.

I use they/them pronouns.

As far as other "pre-round" questions go: Speed is fine. Tag-team CX is fine (so long as you let your partner answer and ask their own questions.) If you are Maverick, please let me know, and we can come up with the appropriate accommodations for you.

General Philosophy: I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. Just because you say something doesn't instantly make it true.

I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.

I am a fan of debaters being good human beings. I think it should go without saying, but being kind, polite and remembering that we are all people goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were also inexperienced at one point.

In addition, I am telling you now: you need to respect the pronouns of the other people in the round. I will not stand for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, fatphobia or ableism in this space. I do not tolerate arguments that are harmful, disrespectful, malicious or any argument that has a directly adverse effect on your opponents. Period.

I will treat you with respect, and as so, I expect you to treat your opponents, your partner, and your judge (me), with respect.

Also Note:

While I am a policy-maker and they aren't my favorite, I will entertain most Ks. I am good with Cap/Neolib, Security, and the like. High theory K's are more iffy, not because I think they're stupid or invalid, but simply because I have difficulty understanding them. I will listen to them, but you had better do a really really good job of explaining them to me. I never really debated high theory Kritiks, so my knowledge of them is somewhat limited. Do with that information what you will.

Now, if you do run a K, please know what you're talking about. I take issue with debaters who simply read Ks to read Ks and who have zero understanding of the authors intent or ideology. I promise you, I can usually tell. Also, please don't try to guilt me into voting for your K because it is the "right thing to do", I really really don't vibe with that. Another big pet-peeve of mine is Ks that are full of flowery language and complex rhetoric but that do nothing. I believe that, if you do run a K, your alt has to have some kind of actual (tangible?) effect. I do accept mindset shifts (as they can potentially cause an actual change) but they need to have some kind of way to prove to me that said shift will take actually take place.

If you are running any identity-politics arguments, you need to be kind.

I like debaters who give me roadmaps. Please give me a roadmap.

Bonus points if you make me laugh.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask. I am always here to help!

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

1. I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
2. Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
3. Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
4. @ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

1. tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
2. However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
3. The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
4. Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
5. I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
6. I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

1. Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
2. Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
3. Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
4. This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
5. If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

1. I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
2. Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
3. Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points and/or ranking will reflect it.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and/or receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last.

A little about me: I was a policy debater in high school (20+ years ago). I currently run Lakeside Debate and Public Speaking School, where I am the head coach. For four years, I was the Congressional debate coach for Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools. For two years, I also taught Congress and PF for Potomac Debate Academy. I was the Head Coach at Wayzata High School for two years where I coached policy. I also coach speech (all categories), most recently at Edina High School. I've literally coached and judged it all. I also have a PhD in social ethics.

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is the minimum expectation in debate rounds. Make sure that the speech you give fits where you give it (i.e., extemping a rebuttal on the third cycle vs. reading a prepared speech in the third cycle for Congress). I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals! See below for more detailed information for events.


CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS EVERYTHING!

I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round, factoring in questions, speeches, and in-round behavior. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, fully impacted out arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

LD/POLICY/PF DEBATE
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts. I will vote on impacts, so make sure you extend them. ***Trigger warnings are not enough; you need to have a non-explicit case that you can run.***

I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori(need to be addressed prior to addressing the resolution), I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case. RFDs will not be tech heavy.

Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds

Tell me why you should get the ballot in all post-constructive speeches. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.

While I am an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies were continental philosophy, critical theory, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I welcome it in PF, too. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.

Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.

This is the single best advice I can give you if I am your judge: do not conflate ethics and morals. An ethic is a way of being in the world; it does not require morals. Morals, conversely, are principles by which one lives one’s life. While many ethics include morals as part of their structure, ethics and morals aren’t the same thing. If you’re making a moral appeal argument, you need to tell me what the morals to which you’re appealing are and why they’re important. If you’re making an ethical argument, you need to tell me what the ethical framework is that I should use. Otherwise, telling me that I have an ethical or moral obligation to vote in a particular way means nothing; you need to give me the framework or the values you want me to use to evaluate the round. When you don’t, it means that I am using my own ethical or moral framework to evaluate rounds and, because no two people have the exact same ethic (way of being in the world), it lowers the persuasiveness of your argument.

PF-Specific Preferences:
Evidence ethics matter!!! DO NOT PARAPHRASE IN FRONT OF ME. Read the actual card. It doesn't take any longer to read the card than it does to paraphrase it. There are no excuses for not reading the actual card. If you take longer than a minute to provide a card that's called, I will strike it from the flow. If the card is called and you were paraphrasing it, I reserve the right to drop you, especially if there are any discrepancies between what you said and what the source says. Critical arguments are always welcome, but make sure you can prove a violation if you’re running T or a norms violation (disclosure, trigger warning, spreading, etc).

SPEECH
I’ve coached every NSDA category and regularly judge them. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.

1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?

2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that matters.

In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny? Are you relying on racial/ethnic, gender, or other stereotypes for comedic effect? (If you do, you'll rank last!)

TRAUMA FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA IS NOT OKAY! There is no reason for the details of an assault to be included in a piece or portrayed during a performance. Trigger warnings must be delivered properly; if I am your judge and your piece needs a trigger warning, please communicate that to me prior to the start of the round. I will take care of alerting the room and allowing time and space for people to take care of themselves. Do NOT turn the trigger warning into a performative action that does not allow time and space for people to take care of themselves.

In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a clear narrative arc throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well?

In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech persuasive or is it dramatic? Does the solutions fit the problem? And in an Info round, is it an informative speech or is it persuasive? I want persuasion in OO and informative in Info.

For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete (claim, warrant, impact) or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground? Is the question closely tied to the arguments made by the student? Impact out your evidence!

3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website or the tournament website (NSDA rules are used widely, so start there).

4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk. If you’re disrespectful in a round, it will impact your ranking.

Make my ranking decisions hard for me! The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - chris.mcdonald@district196.org

Use the above email for any email chains during the round.

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 37 years I do judge my fair share of LD, Public Forum and Congressional Debate Rounds.

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 10 seconds to find the card, you can use your prep time locating it or the argument will become unsupported by evidence.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase. If you do paraphrase your evidence must comport with current NSDA rules concerning how paraphrasing works in line with MLA standards.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams, so I should be fairly up to date on key arguments on the current on topic.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of the topic or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round or isn't debating the resolution we are supposed to be considering at that given tournament. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear especially considering buffering time with online platforms you should probably slow down from what you think you are capable of during in-person debates.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at chris.mcdonald@district196.org

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

Public Forum

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing. Please make note of the new NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard '23 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time, unless otherwise stated by the tournament you are attending. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

tl;dr: You probably won't want me judging a performance aff. K's are cool if you make me understand it, and give it a reason to vote for it in the round (Have. An. Impact). Policy oriented debate is cool. I have no issue voting on theoretical objections/T if they're impacted and shown why it matters.

I won't vote on a position I don't understand. Make sure you explain your position if you want me to vote on it.

[MN Novice Only]: If you break the rules of the packet I WILL NOT hesitate to vote you down, especially if the other team says something. This activity is difficult enough to learn, going into a grey area of packet rules makes it un-fun for other students and un-educational when I need to only coach whack-a-mole answers to rule breaking arguments instead of debate skills.

Email: Nixon@RosemountDebate.com

Experience:
I was a Policy debater for 4 years at Rosemount High School in Rosemount Minnesota. I was a very Policy heavy debater and rarely utilized Kritiks. I have been coaching Policy debate at Rosemount High School since graduating in 2010 and have been judging tournaments in Minnesota.

Philosophy:
I will listen and vote on almost any argument or position you choose to read in front of me. With this freedom of positions you can run there are some caveats though. I prefer to see policy impacts in the round. I would prefer a Counterplan and Disad debate over a critical debate any day. I like to see impacts I can weigh in the traditional Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude model. This does not mean you cannot run a Kritik in front of me though. It just means that if you choose to run one you should make sure it has an impact in the round. If this is not a traditional impact which can be weighed against the Aff, you need to provide me a way to weigh your impacts in the round or I will likely fail to see how your Kritik is going to outweigh the plan.

I tend to weigh Kritiks and anything non-traditional against the aff (or neg, if you're running a non-traditional aff) in a very policy oriented way. I look for impacts, either in the round or after implementation of the plan. I tend to evaluate procedural arguments very heavily in the case of performance affs. I am often uncomfortable judging performance affs.

Kritiks come with a caveat as well. As I stated, I was a policy impact focused debater. I did not read the philosophy y'all are reading in your Kritiks, and I haven't since being a debater. Your position should be clear and there should be explanations of your positions if you are reading some obscure author I've never heard of. I welcome Kritiks, but make sure they have impacts, and make sure I can understand them, or I can't promise my interpretation of your K will match your interpretation.

Topicality and other procedural arguments are fine with me but I have to see why it matters at the end. If you just do a "Extend all of my T" at the end, I probably won't vote on it.

Speed is fine with me. Read as fast as you feel you need to, but make sure your tags are clear. I cannot stress this enough. If I cannot understand you during your tags You likely are not going to get your position across to me. Annunciate and you will be fine.

Email chains: I'd like to be on the Email Chain. I do think that Debate is a speaking activity though, and if I miss something I shouldn't be using the speech docs as a crutch to help unclear presentation. Sometimes I miss things because I'm running slow in the morning (8am is too early for me) and it's not your fault, or after lunch, or because I haven't had caffeine. These aren't your fault and I will use the speech docs in these situations.

Flowing: Debaters are starting to use speech docs as a crutch and not flow. It's incredibly common now for debaters to answer cards which were never read simply because they were in the speech doc. Also it's becoming common for debaters to think they need to send out altered versions of their docs to take out cards they didn't read. This is incredibly annoying and actively KILLING debate as a verbal activity. If this happens in a round I'm judging I will be lowering speaker points.

Tag team cross-ex is fine, unless you ask me if it's fine. Then it's only fine if you physically tag your partner when wanting to tag team.

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.

The following isn't really a paradigm but some background information that may help the debaters that I have the privilege to judge. I've been very reluctant to publish this, but I realize that it may be useful so here it goes. I was a policy debater (state level) many decades ago and have been judging policy and LD since 2016. I have a strong preference to not judge varsity level because I have not kept up with debate and argumentation theory over the decades and I am not a coach. As would be expected I find varsity level debate often gets into these types of argumentations that I am not familiar with. With that said I don't inherently discount any type of argument or style but how I judge such arguments or the terms I use to describe may be limited. I do not accept/review files unless some type of ethics issue develops, and I would also consult the Tab Room in those situations. I am fine with speed to certain level and in general if a debater is consistently gasping for breath that is too fast for me. When citing evidence after initial reference refer to the argument and not the source as I don't track/flow sources.

Debated 4 years at Roseville Area High School '14-'18

Coached for 2 years at Minneapolis Washburn High School '18-'20

yes to email chain: drossini21@gmail.com

for virtual debate, clarity over speed

Hello, my name is Colton Vue my email is coltonvue@gmail.com

I am honored to be judging you from zoom. If we were in person I swear I would be dope.

He/Him/His. I'm good with "bro"

Let's have a good round and please remember to have fun.

Tings about me:

Go for everything in the 2NR jk

Extend your Plan Text, please

Good judge for anyone who likes the movie Tangled

4 years of Policy Debate at Roseville Area High School

Currently a freshman at the University of Minnesota. Human Physiology major.

Debate tings:

Let's start w/ Aff:

Policy Affs: I never ran these post sophomore year of high school. Make sure you don't forget a plan text. The 1AC should give me a clear story of the aff. The 1AR is a make or break speech for the aff. Make sure you have case extensions at the top of each speech.

K Affs: I mainly ran K affs in high school. I ran Hmong Model Minority and Afro-Asian Solidarity. I expect there to be some sort of affirmation statement. Obviously, I am a good judge if you want to run a K Aff, but do not abuse that. When reading complex literature please don't assume that I know what you are talking about. I know K lit gets a bit confusing sometimes so it needs to make sense or I will have a hard time voting on it.

Neg Tings:

Policy: I was not a big fan of running policy arguments when I debated because of that I am not going to be as familiar with the literature and the scenarios. This means the 2N must really explain the story of the DA to me or I will get lost quickly. Also, case v case debate is very underrated. Going for T against a policy aff in front of me won't be impossible if I am convinced that they are untopical. T vs K Affs. I can vote either way it just really depends on how the later speeches work out.

K: I was a one-off K debater in high school. I love it, I think it is badass to say "One-off and case" if you want to sound even more badass say "Flow K next to case". I am familiar with K's like cap, anti-blackness, and anarchy. If you read queer theory or other literature I am not familiar with please explain the link story very thoroughly. Define any "buzz words" and explain to me how it relates to the case. I need a well-developed link story at the end of the day. You also must be able to fight against the perm.

Other Tings:

Seriously have fun, and don't be dicks to each other.

I don't tolerate any racist, sexist, etc. remarks I will vote you down for that shit.

Funny/Creative things are always welcome and you will be rewarded for that.

Let's have a good round.

Personal Information:

probably will not be judging anytime soon, and i'm updating this paradigm simply because tabroom made me. and if i am it's prob gonna be novices (if in policy) bc i'm very out of practice.

i debated in high school policy.

Email: awyang2951@gmail.com

.

.

.

POLICY

______

TL/DR

I'm mostly tabula rasa (I try my best); just don't make any offensive arguments. I am probably (unintentionally, I'm sorry!) predisposed to policy-like arguments, such as framework against the kritik. BTW I have VERY limited topic knowledge, so be aware of acronyms or anything hyper-specific to the topic, especially T definitions.

I've also very unfortunately had to judge more PF tournaments than policy ones, so be patient with me about this topic.

.

.

Specific stuff:

Aff: By the 2AR, you better have a cohesive, comprehensible story of what your affirmative does and what it is. Including K affs. However, if your entire story was explained in the 2AR and not before that, and it's difficult for me and/or the other team to understand you, the threshold for winning is very high.

DAs: I like disads, and most of my neg rounds I've gone for one with a CP. Ptx and specific topic disads are probably very good ways to gain education about intricacies of the topic and nuances of policy. The neg should also have a cohesive story on what causes the disad to happen and what impact this leads to.

CPs: CPs are pretty cool. I like them. Even some of the trashiest disads become viable 2NRs combined with a good CP that solves. They obviously need to be competitive and NOT link to the net benefit. Also, theory can be a reason to reject the CP. Agent, Process, States etc. can be reasons to reject the CP. Judge kick? Meh. I'll decide depending on the round. Condo is usually the only reason to reject the team even if the CP is kicked.

Ks: I'm probably unfamiliar with most of the literature so you'll have to explain it thoroughly. Framework is very important and I'm most likely subconsciously aff-biased on the issue. Otherwise, really weigh the impact of the kritik against the impact of the affirmative. You also don't necessarily need an alternative to win, case turns and/or root cause arguments might be sufficient to win my ballot.

T: T is about two competing models of what debate for the year should look like. That being said, I have no idea of anything on this topic, so please explain your stuff. Talk about whose model is better for the year, (limits and ground, education and fairness, etc.) and whether the affirmative meets either interpretation. T is a gateway issue and I won't be persuaded to weigh the aff's impact before it.

.

.

Speaker Points (this stuff is basically all for novices. for jv and varsity, i'm same as p much everyone else):

A 28.4 should be average. If you're good, I'll make them higher, obviously.

A 26 is if you are mean. Like, substantially mean. Yelling at the other team. Or stealing prep. Or saying something offensive.

A 30 if you would have been able to beat my partner and me our senior year.

For novices, a 28.8 or above is only possible:

1. If you are actually a novice that DOES A LINE-BY-LINE. please. do a line-by-line. it makes my flow prettier.

2. If you are a novice team that ACTUALLY SPLITS THE BLOCK. I HATE when the 2NC just takes everything and the 1NR just repeats it. It just ruins my otherwise really pretty flow.

3. If you are nice to the other team and have tag team be REASONABLE.

4. If you FLOW IN PEN - flowing in pencils or worse, COLORED PENCILS, should literally be BANNED from debate

5. If you don't extend 5 off in the 2NR - please just go for one thing... for your own benefit?

A 29 if I feel like you are REALLY REALLY good.

A 29.5 if I feel like you should be in JV.

.

.

.

PF

__

TL/DR

I'm a policy judge so I may weigh things a bit differently compared to a typical PF judge. Weigh your impacts and actually answer the opponents' arguments; don't just use broad, sweeping claims with nothing to back it up.

Long Version

Again, I was in policy, so I will probably judge your round with a policy perspective (whether subconsciously or not), in that:

1. I don't really accept impacts that are not really impacts. I am not convinced econ growth in and of itself is a good thing, for example (the exception is climate change. I think that you can just say "climate change" without listing potential disasters, as the negative effects of climate change are implicitly obvious). However, I will be very easy to convince that this impact leads to some terminal impact: increasing the job market as a result of econ growth can inherently be a good thing (unless the other side convinces me that the jobs are exploitative or something).

2. I'll, in a round, consider nuke war and other extinction impacts likelier than they actually are (in reality). As long as you win an internal link chain, you're good.

I have judged too many rounds in which PF debaters just read and say things at each other instead of actually clashing. It makes my job incredibly difficult because I might as well flip a coin at the end of the round to determine who wins, as I have two (or worse, >2) completely competing versions of what reality is/should be and no reason to prefer either of them. Do impact calculus and ENGAGE with the other team's arguments, PLEASE.

Speaks

I've heard that a 27.5 is average. So that is your baseline.