***Haven't judged during the 2020-21 topic yet. If you're counting on me to be familiar with popular arguments/cards, you are setting yourself up for disaster. Slow down and err on the side of overexplaining your argument.

aa91597@gmail.com -- put me on the email chain

tldr:

-Subpar at flowing -- keeping your speed at a 7, trimming your tags, and delivering your args in flowable chunks will go a long way with me

-tabula rasa adjacent but will occasionally hack, subconsciously or not, toward accessibility and actual topic knowledge

-Keep your own time. I won't track speeches or prep unless asked to do so by those in the round. Keep each other honest.

-The round speed should be adjusted to make sure all debaters can be included in an educational experience. Trying to spread your opponent thin in front of me is not a good idea. If it is clear that your speed is the reason you won, you should be quite worried about your speaking points.

Experience:

• Policy debater for 3 years in high school on the Nebraska/Midwest circuit (meaning lots of exposure to both hypercritical and traditional debate styles)
• Currently a coach for Central High School in St. Paul, Minnesota (in my 5th year)
• Judge at least 30 Varsity and at least 10 Novice rounds in a given season

Small(Large?) Caveat:
I'm not an expert, so don't treat me like one. You should never assume I'm going to understand your tricky CP theory or that I'm intimately familiar with the lit in your K. If someone who knows next to nothing about debate can't understand your argument, then you haven't done a good enough job explaining it. Since I know slightly more than next to nothing about debate, if I'm moderately uncertain, I'm probably going to err on the side of saying you inadequately explained it. This is a communication activity. I will reject an argument that I don't understand. I can understand speed, and I've found that there's very little theory that I'm unable to wrap my head around when laid out accessibly, but if your strat is to combine the two for the entirety of your speaking times, then you may be preparing yourself for disappointment.

Framing:
Absent a framing debate I'm gonna default to the stock issues paradigm, if for no other reason than because it's probably the first thing all new debaters are taught and is the most accessible way of framing a debate. Burdens always rest with those wishing to break from the accepted rules of debate. I will usually find education, fairness, and accessibility arguments to be the most compelling impacts of a framework debate. I'm not typically a fan of running straight framework on a K aff that reasonably intersects with the topic, but I'm open to voting for it all the same.

Role of the Ballot:
The ROB is to determine who won the debate round. I will default to this ROB whenever it is at all possible. In general role of the ballot args are transparently self-serving and the analysis you're making there would be much better spent on impact calculus.

Topicality:
T is probably a disad. My favorite T debates are of the "your vision of the topic does X" variety. I'm open to you making T a gateway issue too, but know I'm probably gonna get bored since by about midseason I'll have seen most every variation of the generic definition/standards debates. One thing I'm probably not a big fan of is reasonability/gut check answers; I think the Neg is probably gonna win that it causes judge intervention. All the same, I'm open to a good reasonability answer when it is clear T being used strategically or as a time suck rather than a substantive issue.

Inherency:
I'll vote on a good inherency takeout. Inherency's necessary for a fair division of ground between the Aff and Neg and provides the education that's necessary for the Aff to advocate their position persuasively. If you can't identify what part of the status quo is keeping this apparently amazing plan from taking place, you have no position for solvency. The majority of debaters could not tell you the details of their plan, the serious actors potentially involved, or the process of its potential implementation if questioned, which in my mind is reason enough to continue to regard Inherency as a ballot-worthy issue, and makes education deficit arguments on these flows damning.

Theory:
It's likely my threshold is lower than what you'd usually expect a judge's to be. I have no issue with aspec, fspec, or other policy implementation theory arguments on face. I know the fashionable thing is to strictly advocate for clash in a judging paradigm, but honestly as long as I can tell that you're enjoying yourself and presenting your argument as more than just a time suck, then who am I to tell you that what you're doing is wrong? That doesn't mean I won't fully weigh arguments from your opponents that say these exact things though (which means you have to be super good at the techy stuff because most of the truth isn't going to be in your corner). As for Aff theory, I'm open to anything.

Disads/CPs:
Yes. Please do them. This is the type of debate where I have the most knowledge and can add the most value in critiques. And please give me some solid impact calculus to weigh competing arguments. If your CP positions rely on some tricky argumentation mechanisms you'll need to be ready to articulate them in an accessible way though.

K:
I like strong and SPECIFIC links. I'm not gonna be very happy if I hear the words "risk of a link" or "they don't talk about X in their 1AC." (This isn't without exception, depending on how glaring an omission is/its implications). I'm probably gonna err aff on most perm debates. I do find switch-side debate arguments persuasive (to an extent). You can be sure that I'm gonna be suspicious of access to the debate space arguments since they honestly usually come from the highly coached and resourced teams. Be sparing with calling other args (like perms for example) "silencing" because I'm probably gonna be very skeptical of that line (again, context matters here). I think the Aff *probably* should be defending an actionable hypothesis or method of some sort (even if not state action) if they wanna be in a good position to win. My knowledge of K lit is very hit or miss, and I'm not gonna give you the benefit of the doubt absent clear explanation.

If your plan is to spread critical lit I'd recommend the K-12 version because I promise I am not smart enough to grasp complex philosophy in such a high-pressure environment. If you're answering a K/K Aff then I think there is almost always a better route than FW (if for no other reason than because the other team is inevitably prepped to the extreme for any and every FW scenario), but if that's your jam I have no problem with it.

If you are confused about what a K is saying, or what the alt is/does, chances are I am confused too.

Unless I specifically tell you otherwise, my ballot is not an endorsement of anything you said or did during the round. I'm probably not interested in being a part of your solvency contention.

Speed:
I can handle speed to a decent extent. On a scale of 1-10, my flow looks its best at a 6, but I can probably handle up to about a 7.5 without much issue. The earlier in the morning or later at night that it is, the lower these numbers will get. For the love of god, SLOW DOWN ON YOUR TAGS. I will accept the email chain but use it to cover *my* errors and lapses in focus, not issues I have understanding you generally. I will not weigh what I cannot flow. If you are running any sort of argument that relies on nuance you should slow down and make sure I get it. I do NOT assign speaker points based on how quickly you can speed read in any way, shape, or form. Clarity is paramount. I also have a firm belief that speed should never be the factor that wins a team the round and should never exclude anyone else from the debate space. Accessibility is more important than your ego. If your opponent asks you to slow down, do so.

Speaker points:
-I will try to adapt my allocation of speaker points to whatever is appropriate for the tournament and circuit I am judging on. My general median is a 27.5. Lower means you have specific issues or made me specifically concerned in some way during the round. Higher means you are above average in one or many ways for the division you are in from what I have seen thus far.

Things that will specifically hurt your speaker points:

• Speed reading anything that you just shouldn't (taglines, theory, etc.)
• Yelling, name-calling, or any other instances of unnecessary agression (you can be passionate, but don't be a jerk)
• Tags that are more than 2 sentences long
• Premade/nonresponsive overviews or blocks that last more than 30 seconds

Things that will *help* your speaker points:

• Being funny (judging can be exhausting; you're encouraged to help with that)
• Contextualizing arguments using current events and ACTUAL topic knowledge
• Knowing your 1AC/position through and through and killing the warrant level of a debate
• Good 1NC strats, creative cross-apps, and other clever moves
• Not being afraid to use common sense and call bs on something that is obviously ridiculous (perhaps the most underutilized debate tool in my opinion)
• Clearly distinguishing between tags and cards, giving clear road maps and then actually following them, and helping me keep my flows neat in general

-I factor an infinite number of other things into speaker points. Your clarity, use of language, politeness, strategic choices, use of time, and practically all other aspects of effective debate will be factored in. I know it's arbitrary, but all methods of speaker point allocation are.
-I have no problem giving low-point wins.

Judge Intervention:
Please give me a detailed voter story with solid analysis and impact calculus. Please don't wait until the very last speech to start doing so either. In my opinion the best debate strategy is to treat every judge as if they are a lay judge. Connect all of the dots and fill in all of the blanks for them. If you leave me to my own devices on what to vote on, I can't be held responsible for your frustration if you lose. Otherwise, it is up to you to convince me of the content and strengths of a piece of evidence; it certainly isn't my place to decide it on my own. I strive to not intervene when at all possible. We've all had wins taken from us by a judge that wants to further their own views of debate. I never want to be the type of judge that does that to kids. So despite the long rants I've provided on different topics, I will not vote against any argument without a counterargument from the other team, no matter how much I personally dislike the argument or how bad I think the argument is. This does have a few exceptions though. I will not vote on an argument that is clearly and maliciously racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or in any other way offensive or exclusionary. Everyone should feel like they can debate without having their identity actively attacked by other debaters, and I will use my ballot as a tool to deter actions like that in the future. Additionally, if you intentionally misrepresent or lie about your argument or an aspect of your argument in cross-ex, you can bet that I'll cross that argument off of my flow. If I catch you willfully clipping cards or egregiously and intentionally lying about your evidence I will stop the round and immediately sign my ballot with a zero point (or whatever the lowest number the tab room will let me get away with) loss for your team. Debate is a game that should be played fairly.


Cross-Ex:
Tag-team is fine. Obnoxiously rude c-x behavior will be toxic to your speaker points.
________________________

Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round or any time you see me at a tournament. I will listen to and welcome any disagreements or issues with either my paradigm or decision you have without holding it against you in the future. I think it's important that I listen to others in the debate community if I am to be accountable for my decisions.

I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.

I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative. For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts a larger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.

This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.

I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.

Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.

My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know.

I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.

Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
30=Perfect speech
27.5=Average
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior

If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at kicktosscatch@gmail.com

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!

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

Last Updated 11-21-20

Yes, put me on the email chain: hathawaydebate@gmail.com

I use He/Him pronouns

You can call me Logan/ judge, no preference

Currently a sophomore at UMN studying environmental science and sustainability

TLDR For Novices:

1. Clarity > speed (ESPECIALLY WITH ONLINE ROUNDS)

2. I won't flow a tag if I don't pick up on it, so please say "next" or something similar so I know what to flow

3. I won't flow new positions brought up in the block unless you give me a solid reason to do so. If you read a new position in any rebuttal your speaker points will be significantly harmed

4. Neg needs to explain what their advocacy does for me to give it any weight. Don't just say "extend the [CP/K/DA]." Explanation is everything

5. Yes tag team is fine, just don't abuse it

6. I really like the K but run it well

7. It'd be helpful if you could tell me your names/ pronouns/ speaker positions before round (online rounds: put these in your on-screen name)

8. Please time yourselves. It gets old when I have to interject you and say "that's time" every speech. Get into this habit early

9. Extra speaks for starting early (if I'm the reason we start late I'll still give this to you)

TLDR for JV/V:

FOR STATE: put analytics in the speech doc

1. I like theory/ T, but if you spread it I'll stop flowing

2. Clarity > speed (ESPECIALLY WITH ONLINE ROUNDS), both if possible

3. I won't flow a tag if I don't pick up on it

4. Neg gets 4 offcase max. Anything past that is abusive to the aff

5. I will not flow new positions brought up in the block unless you give me a good reason to do so

6. Neg needs to explain what their advocacy does for me to give it any weight

7. This should be the standard for every judge imo, but I'm not gonna extrapolate anything for you. I evaluate the round based on what was said in the round, not on me completing the argument for you

8. It'd be helpful if you could tell me your names/ pronouns/ speaker positions before round (online rounds: put these in your on-screen name)

9. Extra speaks for starting early (if I'm the reason we start late I'll still give this to you)

Experience: Debated four years for Rosemount High School. Currently a 2nd year novice coach for Rosemount. The main thing I've spent my time on in debate is T/ Policy, main strat was TKO, but I know how to follow other positions

Framing: Here's how I currently view debate:

At its core, I think debate is a game, but broader than that it's a space to learn and educate others about issues you care about. As much as debate is a game, it's an educational activity as well.

Affirmatives: I'm used to policy affs, and have more understanding with their utility. I've heard critical affs before, but I'm not that familiar with its function and the components that construct one, so if you're thinking of running a more critical aff in front of me, clarity and clash are key (I'm also cool with you just not running a K aff in front of me). The aff must be within the resolution, and it must defend its plan text the whole round as it sets the path for the whole round. Soft-left impacts are more believable to me than nuclear war, but weighing Timeframe/ Magnitude/ Probability is how I evaluate impacts.

(If you actually read my paradigm and want an extra .5 speaks, make a reference to your favorite Vine on one of your speech docs)

Disads: I don't have any problem with this type of neg strat. Only thing I can say here is that you better have a strong link or your position goes away real quick. Unless the aff never answers it, the work you do with the link should be consistent throughout your speeches. Running a DA as a Net Benefit to a Counterplan is always nice.

Counterplans: They don't have to be topical, but they should be competitive. I default to the perm until neg shows me how it's bad.

Topicality/ Framework/ Theory: Love it. I've got lots of experience running this kind of stuff so whether or not you know how to run it, I'd be happy to hear what you got. I believe the plan must be topical and that it is the starting point for every round. So if there's compelling evidence that your aff is not topical, chances are you're gonna lose. Extra T is kinda touchy so if you do end up using this T, just explain what part of the debate is hindered by them solving stuff outside the rez. Effects T is also viable. Basically, outline clear in round abuse and I'm likely to vote for it. If you spread any of these flows/ arguments I will stop flowing

CX is a speech

Overall conduct in round: racism, sexism, homophobia, unnecessary rudeness, etc. isn't tolerated.

Policy: I will listen to any arguments you pose, and will not discount them categorically, but I prefer to see advantages clash in round. Therefore, I like to see aff advantages cases and disads from neg.

Counterplans and Ks are okay, but I do have a somewhat traditionalist view of policy debate that makes me prefer to see a good stock issues debate that focuses on whether aff's case on the resolution is (a) topical and (b) presents a comparative advantage over the status quo. I will be much more likely to look favorably on Ks on the case, rather than performance or debate/meta-Ks.

I also don't like to see a ton of unnecessary spread - I shouldn't need ten sheets of paper to flow your round and would prefer to see five arguments well-debated than 10 thrown out and half of them abandoned as you go. Talk fast as long as you're understandable and slow down on tags. Make sure your tags match the content of your cards.

L-D: Since LD originates in moral/value discussions, I'm much more sympathetic to Ks here and prefer resolution to discourse kritiks. Again, not a big fan of performance- or meta-Ks. I'm okay with Theory debate on the resolution, but not on the meta or your opponent's arguing style.

PFo: Put simply, I would like to see an intelligible discussion on the merits of the resolution, in a manner that would be accessible to an informed general populace.

Past Affiliations: James Madison University (2012-2016), University of Minnesota (2016-2017)

Current Affiliation: Edina High School

tldr: Do what you do best in front of me. I'm open to voting on pretty much anything. I've debated and coached most types of arguments (big stick affs, soft left affs, affs that don't defend a plan, Ks, DAs, Impact turns etc.). The best way to get my ballot is to 1.) have a clear explanation of the argument with warrants 2.) have an impact well articulated and how you solve/avoid it and 3.) frame the debate as to how I should evaluate the impacts presented to me.

I started debating in college as a novice and really love judging all levels of debate. For me, I see debate as an educational activity not just in terms of the topic we discuss each year but also in terms of the skills we learn by doing debate. I view myself as an external party to evaluate the debate and provide feedback to the debaters. I take notes during each speech and cross ex to remember specific things that were really awesome and/or could be improved. I also will include my notes on my ballot on Tabroom.

General Thoughts/Views on Debate:

Terminal defense/presumption wins debates - I can be persuaded no risk of aff solvency, zero link/internal link to a DA, or that a team doesn't meet their own interpretation/role of the ballot and should lose. "1% risk" only applies if you answer the warrants to their defense.

Evidence is good, thinking is better - Having high quality evidence is strongly encouraged. Reading a card for every argument would be nice but in most cases is unrealistic. I would prefer you (1) tell me why an argument doesn't make sense in context to your aff/K/DA by clearly articulating how your position/argument functions or (2) explain WHY your opponents evidence is terrible (not just it's a really bad card, but what specifically is lacking). Good analytics can beat bad evidence. Expanding on and extending warrants from evidence previously read can subsume their new card's warrants. Notice when they highlight their card to say something different than a tag or they don't get to/cut the card before the warrant of and make an argument about it. Think smarter, not harder.

Be clear on what you defend - It doesn't help anyone (yourself, your opponent or your judge) if you dance around if you defend implementation, what specific reform or methodology you use, what actor you are etc. The sooner you are clear about what the aff does, the sooner solvency deficits/perm functionality/links become clearer for your judge.

Judge-kicking a CP/Alt is probably bad - There are arguments people can make saying it's good but 99.9% of the time aff answers as to why it's bad are stronger. I don't think I have an obligation to kick something the 2NR defended, especially when the aff has a warranted argument against it.

Email Chains are the way/how does one e-debate? - Debate is going to be different for everyone this year. I think especially the first few tournaments will help establish best practices. I'll probably change/add more here later in the season but let's all be understanding with each other re: tech issues and any growing pains of learning a new method of doing debate. Please include me on the email chain; my email is samanthaleighp (at) gmail (dot) com

I flow straight down (mostly) - If you're only taking part of a flow, and it isn't what's on top, that's fine but know I flow straight down for the most part. I will try and match up as a go but I would rather get your arguments down and organize them later.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality:

General thoughts - I default to competing interpretations unless given another way to evaluate T. If a T argument doesn't make sense, you should explain why it doesn't make sense and articulate to me why your aff is a good form of education on this topic. Examples of ground/education loss as well as what is allowed under your interpretation are important in order to explain to me what a world of your interpretation looks like.

In Straight Up Debates – You need to have a clearly flushed out interpretation and why that is important for debate. Impacts for T, I find, are one of the harder things to learn as a debater but ground and education are some of the ones that I find most persuasive. Using T to get links for DAs/CPs is smart and appreciated.

In Clash Debates - I would prefer that affs have a relationship to the topic, but that relationship is up to interpretation and can be debated. A couple of notes adapted from Lindsey Shook and Shree Asware's judging philosophies:

(1) Nuance is important and most persuasive. Sweeping claims about ALL T or ALL K teams or ALL policy teams are not very persuasive to me (ie "all people quit because of K teams" or "T is always X violence”). I would prefer you to make impacts specific to what limits your interpretation is making in context to the arguments being made in the round.

(2) Uniqueness arguments matter. Inevitability and accessibility claims (and their relationship to the T version of the aff) are where I'm most likely to begin evaluating the debate.

Theory:

I like theory debates and may be more likely than others to pull the trigger on it if it's well developed. That being said, I am completely unpersuaded by the 2AC reading 10 blippy theory arguments and trying to develop one or two arguments in the rebuttals. I would prefer the 2AC would make 1-2 well warranted theory arguments. All theory arguments need 1.) a developed interp and 2.) impacts with examples of practices that are justified or abuses that specifically happened in the debate. I default to reject the arg not the team unless told otherwise. Slowing down on theory debates is preferred so I get all of your standards on my flow.

Straight Up Strats:

General thoughts - I am absolutely willing to vote on zero risk of a link/impact or presumption if well executed and warranted. I am finding more and more that straight up 2ACs tend to undercover case and assume judges can/will fill in the rest, especially in terms of articulating solvency. There's a fine line between efficiency and failing to meet the burden of proof in terms of articulation. If you don't say it, I can't evaluate it and it's smart to point out when your opponents fail to do so.

CPs - CPs are good, PICs are better. I'm down to vote for a Word PIC but I think they're more often than not poorly executed. If you have a multi-plank CP, slow down on the CP text so I get all the planks please. Theory on CPs is good, but as explained above, it needs to be well warranted.

DAs - They're a thing? I don't have anything super specific at the moment other than the more contextual your link ev is to the aff mechanism the better. Examples add good context/persuasion to an internal link chain story especially in the absence of specific evidence. A note adapted from Jacob Bosley and Shree Asware's philosophies: DA debates need to be specific as to how the case and the DA interact, such as does the DA turn the case or vice versa, how timeframe evaluation impact turning the case, or how the uniqueness and link frame the debate (ie does uniqueness frame the link or link frame close uniqueness and why).

Ks and Non-Traditional Strats:

Ks should engage the aff. The best way to articulate a K in front of me is to apply the work done on the K flow and apply it to the case with examples. General Thoughts:

1.) I need a clear articulation of how the perm functions or is/isn't competitive. I can be persuaded of "no plan no perm" but this is best executed against an aff that changes their articulation of the aff in every speech. If you want to go for this, you need to articulate why the aff doesn't have a stable locus to test competition with the alt. For both aff and neg, it's far better to explain how the different methodologies interact - what is/is not mutually exclusive or contradictory and what the perm looks like in terms of praxis.

2.) Paraphrased from Lindsey Shook's philosophy: External Impacts need to be somewhere. They don't have to be nuclear war causes extinction but you need to have distinctions from what the aff addresses/solves and what the k/alt addresses/solves and how those interact in some sort of impact analysis, especially in the last rebuttals.

3.) Do what you're comfortable with. As said above, I prefer affs have a relationship to the topic but doesn’t mean you need to defend the USFG/traditional policy action. There are many ways to engage politics and different methodologies add a richness to the education we take away from the activity. I will vote on the flow; I have no preference between Ks (aff or neg) and policy/traditional options.

Experience: I am a fifth-year policy coach for Rosemount High School. I debated for 4 years at Rosemount High School and recently graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in political science (quantitative-focus) and election administration. My main experience in argumentation is in policy-oriented soft-left positions, with a focus on legal theory (court CP's, Court Legitimacy, Test Case FIAT, etc), although I did often run critical arguments such as Neoliberalism, Security, Legalism, and Disability.

Please include me on email chains: sewpersauddebate@gmail.com

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

1. It is an educational activity first and foremost. Everything else (competitive success, winning, etc) is second to education. If you aren't learning, then you aren't succeeding in debate. If you do things that actively harm someone else's education, then you will get bad speaker points.

2. It is a game - in the sense that it should be fair, and you shouldn't exclude others from the discussion. This means debate should be accessible and respectful. Intentionally misgendering your opponent, saying rude comments or anything like that (especially laughing at the other person giving the speech) is not good for a game. That will also hurt your speaker points.

3. It is a competitive reading activity - you should read your opponents' evidence and attack the specific warrants. The other team's evidence is also the best way to find links to any kritiks. Additionally, this means evidence quality matters -- if you misrepresent your warrants and the other team calls you out for it, I will intervene and only judge the warrant as the author originally intended it.

4. Clarity > Speed - I flow on paper, and if you are reading at one speed that is incomprehensible, then you will get low speaker points. I have voted for teams but given them 26 speaker points to them purely because they did not slow down throughout their speech, creating a borderline unflowable speech. Lack of clarity is anti-education.

5. In-depth conversation and argumentation >>>>> five-off or more - I think the tendency to read as many off-case arguments as possible to out-spread the other team is an inherently bad strategy and extremely detrimental to debate. It certainly damages education. I will absolutely accept Condo arguments if the other team is reading more than four-off, especially if you explain how damaging it is to education. This is one of the few areas where I am very oriented towards (my personal) truth over tech. Reading an unreasonable number of off-case arguments is a surefire way to lose a ballot in front of me. Especially if 3 or more of those arguments are separate advocacies, I will (almost) automatically buy abuse arguments.

Affirmatives: As I stated before, I prefer policy plans, but if you have a more critical advantage, I will not be too lost. I prefer soft-left affirmatives over policy affs, but I've run both types. Advantages that tackle discrimination including Sexism, Ableism, or Racism are very responsive to me, as I believe they have the most realistic impacts. I also generally believe the affirmative must be in the resolution. In other words, if you have a critical aff, this is not the best round to run it. I believe the affirmative should stick to the plan text and should defend that plan throughout the round. I do, however, understand the validity of Critical Affirmatives, but if you cannot answer the questions from the negative like "what ground do we get?" or "how is your model of debate accessible?" during cross-examination, you will likely lose, because I view debate as a game that needs to have at least some semblance of fairness and education. In my experience, some K affs end up being a way to scare other teams from engaging with the arguments and ends up shifting the discussion away from education. Basically, if you're able to defend how your model of debate promotes fairness and education, then K affs are fine. But I generally think plan-based affs provide for better models of accessible debate.

All that said, I have recently coached teams that almost exclusively read a non-topical critical affirmative and my stance has softened slightly on that front. I’ll evaluate your K aff, but be prepared to defend your model of debate and why you think it’s good!

Disadvantages: If you run this and want to win with it, there must be a clear link. If you don't do enough specific link work in the 2NR (i.e. show how the plan directly causes your link chain), I probably won't vote for it, unless the aff never answers it in the 2AR. Also, make sure you do impact calculus between the aff and the DA, and prove why your impact is worse. I also love when a team runs a CP with their DA. For politics DAs, I hate most of these because I think the logic behind these DAs is bad and generally relies on flawed assumptions. Politics DAs can be creative, but the bar for this is very high if I'm your judge.

Counterplans: CP's are a versatile position which I am quite familiar with. I believe Counterplans do not have to be topical, but they should still be competitive. Also, if you run a CP, make sure you answer the Perm, and when you do, make sure that you tell me specifically why it doesn't function. Theory can be an independent voter (when it is impacted out), so don't ignore it. Additionally, I think sufficiency framing is usually a pretty lazy argument that is made by teams who don't think their CP solvency is all that good. You need to prove why the CP solves BETTER than the affirmative, not just that it solves "enough" of the aff. Sufficiency framing is generally not enough for me to vote for the CP.

Topicality/FW/Theory: While the position is more valid when there is clear abuse outlined in the argument, there doesn't always have to be abuse. It can be used effectively as link traps or for other strategic reasons. I also love Effects/Extra Topicality arguments, especially if presented well. For the aff, Reasonability is a valid argument, but if you want me to vote on it, tell me why your plan is reasonably topical under the neg's interpretation and the aff's. On theory, disclosure theory is a non-starter. Do not run this, even as a cheap argument. While it won't lose you the round, it will damage your credibility with me and your speaker points. The only exception to this is if the team discloses one aff, and then changes it at the last minute. Then I can see it being warranted. For the most part, I think theory is usually used as a cheap strategy. Don't use it as that. Use it only if it is well-warranted. A-Spec is usually ridiculous and I don’t think I’d find myself voting for it all that often, although if it’s well-warranted, then maybe (the bar for that is extremely high, so please try to avoid this unless absolutely necessary). Perf con against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Condo against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Make sure your theory arguments make sense!

Most of all in theory debates, SLOW DOWN! You are essentially reading paragraphs which are incredibly difficult to flow if you just speed through them. I think spreading through theory is anti-education, and is a surefire way to damage your speaker points. I flow on paper, so my flowing speed is limited and I'm not going to flow theory arguments that I missed - it's your burden to make sure I get them. Additionally, if you don't slow down on theory arguments, you will damage your speaker points. Like I started this paradigm with, debate is an educational activity first. If the way you read theory is anti-educational, I will let you know after the round.

Kritiks: I am not great with all K's, so if you run one, make sure you clearly explain the story (especially the link and alternative) if you expect me to vote for it. However, I have run Disability, Security, Legalism, and Neoliberalism K's as well as Word PIKs, and done some coaching on more identity-based Kritiks, so if you're comfortable with those positions, this would be the round to run it. Basically, if you really want me to follow your Kritik, run Security, Disability, Afropess, Language K's, or Neoliberalism. If you don’t care if I understand your position, run Deleuze, Queer Pessimism or Baudrillard. I have a high bar for voting for Kritiks that I am not familiar with. Do not assume I understand your Kritik, explain it at the thesis level. Just as importantly, explain it within the context of the affirmative! What is the problematic assumption or rhetoric that the aff makes/uses? How does that cause the perpetuation of the bad thing you're Kritiking? How does your alternative resolve the issue? A Kritik that earns my ballot will answer all of these questions.

General: Spreading is fine, but make sure you don't go past what you feel comfortable with and SLOW DOWN ON THE TAGS. If I miss your tag because you didn't pause or slow down when reading it, I am not going to flow it for you. Make it clear, or I won't weigh the argument. When you are speaking, make sure you analyze each argument in full and make a coherent claim. Tags should be complete sentences. The word "Extinction" is not a tag. I will not flow it as an argument if that is your tag. Also, please self-time. It really helps me, and especially it helps you.

Please do not try to throw rounds. I have had a team do that in front of me, and I believe that it legitimizes a bad practice in the debate community, is anti-education, and it will severely impact your speaker points if I realize your intention.

Structuring: I will give you extra speaker points if you NUMBER AND SUBPOINT each of your arguments on the flow for the ease of flowing.

Other Positions/Arguments: There are a few positions that I will NEVER evaluate within any round. These include, but are not limited to:

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good

-Suicide CP/DA and/or Death K (Seriously. The way this is commonly debated brings with it serious mental health concerns and I will tolerate none of that.)

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

Basically, if you think that your position sounds like it advocates for something offensive, don't run it.

Cross-Examination: Make sure you are polite. I am fine with tag-team if both teams agree to it, but if you shout over your partner, I will dock speaker points. Most importantly, remember that CROSS-EX IS A SPEECH. Cross-Ex is a great place to set traps for your opponents, and for you to be able to use what they say in-round against them. I do flow cross-ex, so I know what was said. Don't try to pull one over on me.

To sum it all up in a few points...

1. Education comes first. Debate is an educational activity at its core, and I believe my primary role within the round is that of an educator. If you do things that I deem as harmful to debate education, you will get lower speaker points, and may lose the round.

2. I tend to be a policy-oriented judge, although I am very comfortable with Kritiks. If you want to run one, be sure to fully explain it as if I have never heard of the philosophy before.

3. Cross-Ex is a speech and a great place to form arguments, so use it!

4. Explain everything to the fullest extent, especially links. If there is not enough work done on DA/K/T links, I will not vote for it.

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round starts!

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

im down with k affs you just better be good at responding to t cause i love t

I've been juding for a few years and i debated a bit before that (started judging in 2018)

Its okay to be nervous. debate especially when you just start debating can be really scary. Its okay take a deep breath. if that doesn't work talk to me we can ways pause the round for a minute or two for mental health.

Clarity comes before speed

Yes you can tag team but don't abuse it. (You can not tag team against a maverick )

Even if both teams are three headed monsters the third person who isnt in that debate CAN NOT help.

If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it

If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.

If you don't make it clear your going onto a new card by saying next it is very possible I'll miss your tag.

Make it clear where you on in the speech by sign posting i will probably flow it on the wrong flow which wont make your argument stronger.

Its totally fine to be assertive but don't be mean if you get mean I'll dock speaker points.

If i see you not flowing all of the speeches i will dock speaker points.

Don't ask me questions in round if it deals with the round wait until the debate is over and im giving my rfd.

Extending isnt re-reading the card its reading the author year then explaining the warrant in your own words

I don't flow cross x. BUT if you say something that goes aginst the side you supposed to be on i will write it down in the notes

Tell me if there is anything you don't want me to comment on like if you have a stutter. I dont wanna be bring that up and possibly just annoying you