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

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

"Debate Coach" at Hopkins High School (2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Big Questions 2024

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

Sections/State 2024 Updates

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

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

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

General Info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

T

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

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

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

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Non-negotiables

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

Traditional LD Paradigm

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

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 11

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

Rounds judged this year (insert any year here): usually between 80-100

***Include me on the email chain (LD, CX)

Background:
I debated for St. Francis High School, in Minnesota, from 1989 to 1993, during which time I debated two years of CX and two years of LD. I also debated four years of CEDA debate, debating for various schools. I have been the Director of Speech and Debate at St. Croix Prep in Stillwater, Minnesota since 2013, and I have coached LD, CX, WSD, PF, BQ and all speech categories. I also teach ninth grade Ancient World Literature at St. Croix Prep.

Overall Philosophy:
I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships of different arguments and/or philosophical ideas. I also believe that competitive debate is an exercise in effective rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos). With all this in mind, I love debates that involve teams that know their position in the debate and are passionate about their arguments. If one team in a debate shows that they care more about their arguments than another team, this definitely can have an impact on how I evaluate the round. I typically evaluate each team’s use of evidence, reasoning, and passion to further their arguments and clash with their opponent’s arguments, hence my previous mention of the role of the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Most importantly: Be consistent, tell a good story, and explain your arguments in the context of what has happened up to that point in the debate. Teams that just read pre-written rebuttal speeches that don't contextualize their arguments don't usually do very well in front of me.

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and impact analysis. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I am not voting on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. However, if it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, there may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond as often as possible. I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX debate).

Speed:
Short Version: Be clear and intentional on your tags and author names; you can go faster on your evidence, but I should still be able to understand you. I prefer passion and intensity to speed. Most of my debaters are traditional LD debaters, so I'm not a big fan of circuit speed. Will I flow it if you are slowing for tags and authors? Sure. Will I like it, probably not s'much. In this regard, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you just go on-case and dump a bunch of stuff on the flow, I won't do your work for you.

Long Version: Many of today’s debaters (at least circuit debaters) are not doing much that is different than what has been done in the speed category over the last twenty years. However, I do have some preferences in this regard. When you are speaking at 250+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which invariably leads to miscommunications later on in the extension debate. One request that I have to resolve this issue is that debaters speak more articulate and “slower” in their presentation of their signposting, their claims, and their citations. This really shouldn't slow down the overall presentation of the speech by much, but it should make the presentation of those “flow-able” points more intentional. Additionally, I will not shout "clear" or "slower" if you aren't articulating your signposts, tags, and cites. An optimal speed is probably around 200-250 on average for me if you at least slow down for these three areas.

Persuasion:
As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

Preferences:
While I believe, as previously stated, that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some topical awareness in a debate. With that in mind, I would suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic as worded in the resolution, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate. I would say that my favorite debates are debates that are actually directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I do enjoy critical affs that are actually topical). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid and supported rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination:

I really enjoy a great cross examination, especially because it allows debaters to really show their skills when it comes to the interactive part of debate. I think that cross examination is a place that really allows the most prepared debaters to shine. Because of this, I usually determine how I am going to assign speaker points based on a debater's performance in cross-ex. So, please don't ask if you can use the rest of CX as prep. That will always be a big "No."

I am okay with tag-team cross-examination in policy debate to a degree, but I hate it when one debater is clearly the puppet and their partner is the puppet master. This becomes obvious if one debater has no clue how to answer questions posed about what they just read in the speech. That being said, I would encourage you to use tag-team cross-ex as an emergency cord, not as something that should be used frequently.

The Ballot:
Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, as far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

Policy Notes:
As has been mentioned previously, I am accepting of most arguments, as long as the debaters are able to explain the rationale behind running such an argument and the impact that the argument has on the debate. I love direct clash, since I believe that this shows a team’s level of preparedness, especially in policy debate, but I also love good critical discussions as well. Overall, I would say that the biggest issue for me is speed. Please, please, please, at the very least, make your signposting, claims, and cites audibly clear and slower than the rest of your speech. I believe this also offers you the opportunity to add emphasis to these points as well, and in so doing show the passion you have for your arguments.

LD Notes:
For me, everything in Lincoln-Douglas debate should come back to the framework debate (value/criteria). However, if a debater decides to run a policy affirmative (or counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks on the negative), then I will decide the debate accordingly. However, just because you have a plan doesn't mean that the framework debate is automatically a Utilitarianism debate. If the opposing side reads a value and criteria and makes the debate about how we are to evaluate arguments (value/criteria), then you need to be ready for this debate, since (as previously stated) this is my predisposition in LD debate. A debater could win all of their contention level arguments and still lose a debate if they cannot prove that their method for evaluating the arguments should be preferred over their opponent's method. I think that some of the best LD debaters are those that can attack criteria with supporting evidence, or they can prove how they can perm their opponent’s criteria. Ultimately, I will vote on the voting issues presented in the debate (or impact calculus if the debate becomes a Util debate), but I will consider the criteria debate first and last when making any decision. That being said, I will entertain "nontraditional" affirmatives and negative positions in a debate (Topicality, Kritiks, Theory, etc), but you need to explain its relevance to the topic and/or arguments that have already been presented in the debate.

How I vote: I want debaters to tell me why I should vote for their position over their opponent's position. If you just barf a bunch of arguments onto the flow and don't explain how I should evaluate them against what your opponents have said, then I probably won't be too keen on buying in to your "story." I'm not a fan of judge intervention, so don't leave me too much room to make my own decision.

NEW STUFF***Kritikal Arguments Continued(CX/LD):

As mentioned before, I enjoy a well-run kritikal argument on either side of a topic; however, with this in mind, I have a few significant points I would like to discuss.

First, I believe that a kritik only holds its value when maintaining all primary parts as a cohesive whole (link, impact, alternative, and alternative solvency). That being said, if you try to extend the front half of a kritik as a non-unique disad, I will be unlikely to vote for it. There is some room for methodology to become a singular issue, especially in KvK debates, but I haven't seen those as often.

Second, I dislike impact turns on kritiks, and these usually come across to me as supercharged links to the kritik. That being said, I would strongly suggest you avoid trying to impact turn a kritik. Link debates and alternative debates are much more persuasive.

Third, a good alternative is a necessary part of the debate, but it can hinge on what you are trying to accomplish in the debate. If you are trying to affect change in the debate space with the hope of spillover, then your alternative should reflect this specifically. If you are trying to play the hypothetical game that the policymaking affirmative is playing, then play that game but be prepared to explain specific steps to the world of the alternative and what that world will look like.

Fourth, I am most familiar with the following Ks: Cap, SetCol, Biopower, Ableism, Death Cult, Anthro, MIC, PIC, IR, Borders. However, if you can explain the kritik to me in more cogent terms, I am willing to entertain other kritiks.

Fifth, if you are running a kritik, try to slow down a little. I don't like to feel like my brain is melting.

Prep Time:Please don't steal prep by taking extra time to assemble the doc, attach the doc, and send the doc. I will run prep until the speech doc is received by me.

ONLINE: To keep these things running smoothly, I won't disclose at the end of the round.

THEORY: DIsclosure theory in LD is a non-starter for me. Be better. I am a small school coach, so I know the argument. I just don't like it. I firmly believe that disclosure norms are net worse for small schools.

Judge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.

I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have been mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.

I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.

Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.

Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.

Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.

Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.

Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.

Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.

My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.

Samuel Hoska’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself: I have been involved with forensics for 15 years as a student, judge and coach. I am currently a coach at Edina High School, teaching Lincoln Douglas Debate. My background was originally in debate and speech where I competed and coached. I have been judging debate for the last 4 years, in all categories. I am currently a student at Minneapolis Community College for a Business Bachelors. I have a half a year remaining and then I will be working on a Bachelors in Communication and a Teaching certificate. I typically judge LD but I am capable of judging any category.

General: I enjoy a coherent arguments made with properly argued evidence. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument. I try to bring the spirit of Tabula Rasa to every round I Judge.

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

Critical Arguments: I was a LD and PF debater in high-school. I appreciate all critical arguments when they are understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable. I pay attention when a debater uses Voters, I always want to know what each side thinks was the most important points in a round.

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

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

Last Updated: 11/30/2018

he/him

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

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

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

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

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

I hold the line.

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

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

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

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

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

Specific arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framework matters and you have to link to one in order for me to care about your impacts

Stock is cool

Ks are fun, explain them well.

Also do run whatever but I have a high burden for theory.

Clearly explain dense phil so I understand. If I don’t understand it I won’t vote on it.

Link, extend, do the things that make you a good debater even if you are circuit-y.

Talk as fast as you want, I will say slow or clear if needed.

Sit or stand, I do not care

30 speaks if you do a back flip, 29 for front flip

+0.5 or 1 if you bring me food

Start at a 28 and move up or down based on how you speak and your strategy.

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

Emphasis on clarity of argument. “Theory” argumentation will likely not fly. Read/argue no faster than slightly above conversational levels, or prepare for much of your point to not make my flow.

I competed in LD for two years in high school, and I now coach and judge LD for Chaska High School. I am currently a freshman at Macalester College.

Update For PF at Blake (12/20/19)

I have never judged PF before, but I will do my best to evaluate arguments on the flow, keeping in mind the preferences below.

DO NOT run a US-based politics DA for this resolution, especially if you try to construe any one group as single-issue voters who only care about Venezuela.

Style/Rules

Off-time roadmap: Yes

Flex Prep: Yes

Speed: I honestly don’t care as long as I can understand and flow it. I spread as a competitor, but I wasn’t the best at it. I should be able to understand, and if you signpost clearly I can flow spread arguments. I will be part of the email chain if you have one asw7412@gmail.com . You may not spread unless both parties are comfortable.

Calling for cards: Only if the validity of the specific evidence is an issue in the round. If I find your card isn’t fully/properly cited (author, date, publisher, link, and full paragraphs) we will have a problem.

Time: I will time both debaters (speeches and cross-x). You can finish your last sentence, after that I will stop flowing. On cross-x you can finish the question that you were on, and your opponent can answer in a timely manner.

Standing/sitting/facing: I couldn’t care less as long as you stay at your desk/chair.

Arguments

Framework/impacts: Framework is the most important part of the round (at least for traditional LD). I don’t care if you use a v/c or standard. Both sides need to clearly link impacts to the framework and weigh under it. I don’t care if you concede framework just weigh clearly under whatever framework we’re using.

Topicality: I don’t need an impact, just tell me why it doesn’t fit the definition. I will listen to extra-t, spec and other topicality-related theory arguments.

General theory: I don’t like theory and I only want it run in cases of blatant abuse. That being said, I will vote for most stuff other than disclosure. If the neg runs drop the debater theory I will give the aff an RVI. The neg never gets an RVI.

Plans/CPs: I was a LARPer in high school and I love plans. That being said I will listen to theory about plans good/bad. Same with counterplans, PICs, etc. I like a good perm debate as well.

Politics disad: please don’t run these unless you can prove that a: the resolution is occurring right now, b: the aff has to spec an actor and c: the aff has to spec an implementation. You also need to have a link card about this specific policy, not just similar ones. Don't tell me that everyone of x group is a single-issue voter.

Condo: Please spec whether an argument is condo or dispo when reading. However cross-x does check, so if your opponent doesn’t ask the first point is moot. I will listen to theory debate on condo. Don’t run contradictory arguments.

Kritiks: I am not a philosophy major and I didn’t run Ks in high school. Do not expect me to understand the lit if it is not explained clearly. I will vote for it if I understand what your argument is, but I have no experience running or studying high phil. That being said, I am somewhat familiar with cap, biopower and security (and some other stuff of that ilk).

Pre-fiat vs. Post fiat: There is a much higher threshold for pre-fiat then post-fiat Ks. At the end of the day, we are all kids playing a game, and unless you can prove to me that I shouldn’t vote for the better player because my vote matters for some external reason, and that reason is significant enough that I should completely fuck up the point of this activity to do so, then feel free to run pre-fiat. Post-fiat I generally don’t have a problem with, but have a good alt and weigh impacts.

Tab: I only weigh on what’s in the round. I will not do work for you.

Random Preferences

Speaks range: 25-30, 27.5 average. 25 is atrocious, 30 is perfect. I will adapt to tournament ranges if they are given.

Narratives: I will vote you down and tank your speaks to boot. Do IEs if you want to run a narrative. Notice that this is not in the argument section.

Circuit vs. Non-Circuit: If you run nat-circuit style arguments/spread against a debater who is not familiar with them, I will give you the win (if you win) but I will give you 26 speaks max.

Random other: Cross-x does check. Please use all your speech time, be respectful. I will take speaks for behavior directly before and after the round and before I submit my ballot. I will give verbal and written critiques. I will disclose if both competitors are OK with it.