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

TLDR (my round is starting):

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

Decision Calculus

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

Tendencies

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

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

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

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

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

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

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

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

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Please talk slowly, I don't like debate speed speaking. If you're speaking too quick and I miss something, it won't be on my flow. 

Background: I was in speech and debate at East Ridge High School in Minnesota and graduated in 2018. I did info and OO in speech. I mainly did congress while I was in debate, but I also competed in PF decently often, and in World Schools at nationals. I also did IPPF and extemp debate.

I graduated from the University of Minnesota - Carlson School of Management in December 2021 with a degree in finance. I work at Travelers in fixed income investments, i.e. the bond market. I am currently pursuing my CFA designation. With that educational and professional background, I tend to favor economic arguments. These are usually easier for me to keep up with and are very enjoyable for me to listen to! I do love a creative argument though. 

Debate philosophy: I think debate is a great academic activity that teaches critical thinking, research, speaking, and other life skills. I'm a "Truth > tech" judge. In all debates, I would rather a competitor have 2 thorough, nuanced contentions than 4 thin, poorly defended contentions. I enjoy being persuaded, not being told at.

In congress, I like either new arguments, or a rebuttal speech. Please do not recycle arguments, and please do not recycle rebuttals - both don't move the debate forward. I tended to PO a lot in high school, so I have a healthy appreciation for a well run chamber. Feel free to use puns and other methods to improve your speaking stylization!

tahir.ahsan0@gmail.com

Debate Bio

LD debater in MN (2012-2016)

Irregular LD Judge (2018-present)

Comfort with non-stock material

If you've sought out my paradigm, this is probably the relevant material for you. As a general note, it's been 5 years since I last encountered the following with any regularity.

Theory: I'll accept it in relevant applications. Unless there is an extreme case, I default to drop the argument when accepting the theory shell.

Kritiks: I'm not entirely opposed to kritiks, but if they are lacking a strong connection to the opposing case and/or come across as something being read regardless of what your opponent brings to the round, they won't mean much to me.

With both theory shells and kritiks, I do not look favorably to instances where these are used merely to create timesinks in the opponent's next speech.

Preferences

Don't misgender your opponent when their pronouns have been provided (seriously, this happens about once a tournament and the most common reason I decrease speaker points). Better yet, just refer to them as "the Aff" or "the Neg."

I am fine with most speed. Please do keep in mind that remote debating conditions may change this. Slow down for tags, sources/authors, and key elements. Arguments that rely on your opponent missing them are not good arguments.

Always roadmap before your speech. I will ask for one before rebuttal starts if it isn't provided. It doesn't have to be a "quick roadmap" either as long as you aren't making arguments during it. The more specific you are the better; it's fine to deviate from the roadmap due to time constraints during the actual speech. Note that you should still be signposting your arguments in the speech.

Flex prep is allowed.

Unless the difference between the values is significant, don't spend time on them. I've spent too many hours hearing meaningless value debates.

Unless the standard/criterion has been conceded (or very one-sided), you'll be much more likely to get my ballot by connecting your impacts into both frameworks.

I won't make your extensions for you. Refuting your opponents argument does not constitute an extension. They are separate. A good extension will be able to inform a late audience member on a round's key argument and it's importance in framework(s) while staying concise.

Weigh the arguments. You should be telling me why your impacts should win you the round even if I didn't buy your rebuttals against the opposing impacts.

Speaker Points

I average 28 on the 30 point scale. Speaks will be lowered as a result of any condescension, bigotry, or over aggressiveness.

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.)

I am a parent judge - prefer traditional LD.

Request to both the participants - please speak slowly & clearly - do not spread- you have done hard work preparing your argument - make sure others can listen and understand it.

Request to Aff participant - please call out the motion being debated before you start your Aff argument.

Have a healthy debate folks.

Speed: If I say "clear" that means I want you to slow down.

To win my ballot you must:

1. Extend in Summary and Final Focus
2. Signpost
3. Weigh
4. Metaweigh
5. Implicate
6. Warrant
7. Engage with warrants (Warrant debate is real debate)
8. As intuitive as it sounds, you need defense and offense but as a judge I vote only on offense.

Other things:

1. Defense is not sticky.
2. I listen to crossfire but I don't flow or vote off of it. If something big happens in crossfire, say it in a speech.
3. No new evidence after 1st summary.
4. I don't mind if you go a few seconds over time, just wrap up and don't add anything new. Don't abuse this and I can stop paying attention whenever I want.

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

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

Etiquette & Common Questions

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

Spreading

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

Paragraph long tags

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

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

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

Topicality/Theory

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

Disclosure Theory

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

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

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

Kritiks

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

CPs/DAs/etc

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

Framework (LD)

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

Random thought on util

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

Overviews/Underviews

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

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

I’m a parent judge who has judged LD for 3 years now.

I have mainly judged local tournaments in Minnesota, so only traditional debate.

You should give voters, speak at a slower pace, and explain your argument thoroughly to get my ballot.

"That's the number one rule of data journalism: come in with an agenda, and bend the rules however you need to, in order to prove your point." - Jon Bois

To preempt questions in-round, here are my perspectives on things while I'm judging.

Speaker Points:

I typically judge speaker points based on two things: public speaking ability and quality of sources used. For public speaking I'm looking for clear articulation, eye contact, etc. It is better to speak clearly and well in a succinct manner than it is to speak poorly but verbosely. I will typically assign speaker points from 25-30, only dipping below 25 if you use rhetoric that is actively bigoted, racist, etc, or abusive to the resolution/definitions. You can score a 30 and lose the round, you can score a 25 and win the round.

Theory:

I am not personally a fan of theory debate. If you run theory in a way that is neither abusive nor inaccessible to the other debater then I will tolerate it, but I am more likely to respond to debates on grounds of framework and resolution.

Spreading:

I have no real problem with spreading, just be wary that it can reduce your effectiveness as a speaker (i.e. potentially fewer speaker points) and harm your ability to signpost clearly.

Signposting

Signposting and roadmaps are the most useful tools at your disposal to communicate to your judge why you won the round. USE THEM. If something is not on my flow, I will not weigh it. If the debate is sufficiently close odds are I will judge on clarity and speaker points.

My Background:

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate from 2019-2022, and have some experience judging PF.

Yes, I want to be on the chain. email: doddsbw1@gmail.com

PLEASE HAVE FUN! debate is fun :) engage in practices that benefit our community and represent it well. Debate is an activity in which many, myself included, have found their passion--use your common sense and leave debate better than you found it.

TL;DR: I am a tech/flow judge. Weigh. Be accessible.

I’m the LD coach for Minnetonka High School. I did debate all 4 years of high school on the Minnesota circuit, mainly. Only competed circuit like once a season.

Alright, now onto the actual paradigm. General stuff at the top, circuit stuff at the very bottom.

Equality in Forensics Winter Championship

Like any tournament on the national circuit, this tournament pulls together an eclectic mix of localities & experience levels. Please be understanding of differences in norms and accommodate each other in good faith. The emphasis I place on accessibility will be even stronger at this tournament.

Also, since we are online, I'd appreciate it if speech docs were shared and if you're extra clear.

I have a lot of patience for tech issues but very little for taking advantage of them for prep theft (and I will know if that's what you're doing).

If you're a novice and I am judging you

LD Novice Guide: A little cheat sheet/glossary for speech times, flow structure, case structure, and general debate terms.

Nov/Dec 2023 Topic

Please do evidence comparison on this topic! It's another one of those topics where there's constantly various studies flying back and forth and it seems like debaters have forgotten how to do good evidence comparison.

In general, I'd prefer it if you ran wholeres, or if you only spec mechanism/enforcement of the plan. Really don't want to see clash-avoiding plans where just fracking is banned in like two states. Also wouldn't like to see PICs.

General notes

I am definitely tech>truth, and I prefer good argumentation>presentation. Don’t be monotonous or spread at locals, but otherwise be as technical and use as much jargon as you want. You can assume I have some topic knowledge, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your arguments clearly. If I have no clue what you're actually arguing, my threshold for voting against the arg is low.

You need to explain the implications of CX concessions, drops, turns, etc. If you make an argument, don't expect me to implicate it for you. Rounds are very hard to decide when the debaters are so wrapped up in the line-by-line that they fail to explain the implications of the line-by-line.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE extend specific cards and warrants if your opponent reads a generic block against them! A huge missed opportunity I see all the time in all divisions is debaters responding to generic blocks/arguments without realizing that their original contention contained a card/sentence/warrant that accounted for or had an embedded response against the block. Be specific, be nuanced, and be surgical.What separates a good and a great debater is the extent to which they're able to be specific and nuanced. Debaters who rely on broad strokes instead of surgical nuance will almost always lose to debaters who know and can explain the specific mechanisms of arguments.

On the MN circuit, please keep it relatively trad. I will err heavily on the side of trad norms, so be circuit-y at your own risk. Be accessible, please.

A walkthrough of my decision making process:

1. Evaluate which framework to use and any other constraints like burdens or contentious definitions.
2. Look at the articulated offense under these frameworks.
3. Look at the defense on said offense; this helps me determine risk of offense.
   
   
4. Evaluate the weighing done on this offense under the framework (s).
5. Make my decision based on who has the most offense under the framework.

I place an emphasis on good, explicit weighing. If you don’t weigh you won’t get my ballot.

Some people that have influenced my understanding of debate (too lazy to link their paradigms so just look them up lol)

-Raymond Zhang: coach freshman and sophomore year, learned the basics from him

-Sam Anderson: judged often by him and agree w his paradigm

-Nick Smith: judged by him a lot and agree w his paradigm

SPEAKER POINTS

I'll default to somewhere between 28-28.5; points will go up or down from there.

Things that will get you high speaks:

-Any kind of turn, but especially impact turns

-Not using any analytics--don’t just read a card as a block without explaining the implications

-Being extremely clear where you are on the flow

Circuit Pref Shortcut:

LARP/Trad-1

T-2

Neg Ks-3

Simple phil-3

Theory-4

K affs/tricks/phil that you don’t even understand and are just spitting out because you found an overcomplicated Levinas FW-Strike

Unless otherwise instructed, I default to CI and DTD on theory.

If you are using fiat to get out of neg offense, you should make some sort of justification for your version of fiat-fiat comes in all shapes and sizes and interpretations.

Background:

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas when I was in high school, and judged at a few tournaments when I was in high school. I recently have returned to judging after a long break.

Paradigm:

-Speed is ok only if you are clear and I can clearly follow your case.

-Be clear about where you are in your case and argumentation. Be organized so I can follow your arguments through the round.

-Use the value and criterion to give me a framework. Bring these through the round and tell me how you have won them.

-Have well thought out, reasonable arguments. It's important that you have clear links and support. Everything can result in nuclear war, so if you're going to argue that will happen I need some clear evidence to support it.

-I prefer strong, well thought out arguments. Having a bunch of cards without a clear story/argument weighs less than a few, well evidenced, well thought out arguments. I prefer quality over quantity.

Don't be cringe

Hello! My name is Aira and I am a first year university student :)

I primarily did Congress through high school and dabbled in a little PF. I debated for Lakeville North HS.

I have judged a number of PF and LD rounds and I find weighing as a very important mechanism in debate. Impacting is also necessary, especially in rebuttal, so I would love to see more of that! Please avoid spreading in rounds as it makes it very difficult to note down all the points you make, I would also say that it would be good to signpost as that helps me organize my notes so I can give you proper feedback.

I am not a circuit debater by any means so run any of these arguments at your own risk ( theory, kritics, CP, etc)

if you are gonna have an email chain add me : airahader@gmail.com

I will start speaks at 27 and move up or down based on how the round goes :)

If you add a Taylor Swift reference into ur speech 30 speaks.

I am the most skilled in judging congressional debate, thus, I can give you the most feedback for it! I would say I find rebuttal very important in round as it adds the most clash, otherwise rounds just end up feeling repetitive and slightly boring. Summary speeches are also fantastic as they end the debate on a strong note! So I will give you higher rankings if you try your best on those two components. Not only that, please introduce new points throughout the debate instead of repeating them, and if you do repeat, extend off your previous opponents and add better points, makes your case a LOT stronger. Rounds can be hard to listen too if you end up hearing the same points over and over.

Thanks for reading!

HI! My name is Sofia Ishal I am an LD coach at Apple Valley and I did LD debate throughout hs. :)

I am now a sophomore at the University of Minnesota studying philosophy and sociology of law. I consider myself a lay-leaning judge but key technical aspects of debate matter to me.

Most of my debate influence/knowledge has come from my HS coaches: Nick Smith, Cori Roberts, Alharith Dahmeh, Amadea Datel, and Jacob Nails ( Influence in this order) I agree with most of their paradigms so take a look at theirs if you have time :)

I have Judged roughly 75 rounds ranging from Novice, JV, and Varsity four rounds of PF, and four rounds of World Schools Debate

JV/VARSITY:

I was not a circuit debater nor do I coach circuits so run anything circuity at your own risk; I know a semi-decent amount about circuit args theory, counter plans, K's, spec, etc. just do a clear job extending it and explaining why I should vote on it. with that being said I do not want to see circuit behavior during local tournaments. I am okay with speed, but anything faster than fast conversation may get lost in my flow. make sure that you are not sacrificing clarity for speed because that will not bode well with me. make sure you also lean into the persuasiveness of LD. A persuasive and big-picture 2AR or 2N will do more work to get my ballot than an overly techy 1AR.

Do not assume that I will catch everything on my speech doc if you do decide to spread it. If there is an email chain, add me: Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

NOVICE:

I have a very good understanding of basic and complicated Phil frameworks, but please do a good job extending it and telling me why I should weigh under it for the round. If you run anything circuit as a novice (theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it. and even if your opponent can interact with it, there is still a very small chance I will vote on it, And it will lead to very low speaker points. at this level of debate focus on improving your basic argumentation skills and effective communication techniques instead of just trying to learn the more circuity and complicated aspects of debate. I will always give feedback in novice rounds when asked for and will give a thoroughly written RFD

For both:

You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will let you finish your sentence but will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll start speaking around 27 and move up based on how the round goes :)

PF:

I have judged four rounds of PF LOL and have a semi-ok(emphasis on semi) grasp on how to evaluate a PF round, same attitude towards tricks and K's I was not a circuit debater... like at all so run any of these at your own risk :)

WSD:

I did not do WSD however I understand the speech times and the general gist of it. from what I noticed WSD tends to avoid a clash, pls pls pls have a clash, it'll make me so happy :). I am not familiar with all of the community norms but I will knock during the first and last min to signify protected time. Makes the extensions of previous arguments clear in rebuttal speeches and stray away from talking fast.

BQ

I did some BQ in high school but not a ton( and not a lot competitively) however having done and coached LD I am apt enough to judge BQ. My big thing is please have a clash and explain clearly link level arguments. In BQ definitions are going to determine a lot in the rounds so make sure you have clear and extended definitions and you should be good.

Disclosure:

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it, and I write extensive comments on ballots.

Especially if I disclose, but in all cases, please ask me questions, but stray away from extensive post-rounding(In the case that I disclose), if there is anything I can do to make it make more sense to you, I am happy to do so. please feel free to email me: at Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

please be respectful to your opponent and stay away from racist, homophobic xenophobic, etc remarks; these will lead you to being dropped!!! Being rude is never acceptable EVER I have and will tank speaks.

I love judging laid-back rounds where the competitors are having fun and are friendly with each other so try to strive for this! debate before anything else is an activity meant to be enjoyed!!

I love this activity. I highly admire anyone who is willing to even try it. I debated L-D in college. While that was a long time ago, my feeling is that while this is not an emotive speech activity, it is a speech activity. Therefore speaking effectiveness is key to me. I value enunciation, volume and conversational pacing. If I cannot flow the arguments due to rapid fire delivery, I cannot judge the arguments. In other words, you could lose an argument if I didn't hear it to begin with and I don't consider the argument dropped if the opposition doesn't address it either. Your research and writing count - and I treasure the presentation of both in a manner that focuses on the quality of your words, not the quantity. I will judge Framework as one point, it does not determine the entire round. So Happy to Be Here and So Proud of All Debaters - Have fun!

hi!!! I did four years of LD at Lakeville, mainly locals but occasionally circuit. I prefer tech trad stuff, but I'll do my best to evaluate anything besides tricks.

speed is fine, just put me on the chain: katherine.krogstad@gmail.com

questions are more than okay, but postrounding makes me sad :( pls don't do it

have fun, be accessible, and don't be mean. debate is always a game, but as my friend once put it, play in good faith.

I'll try to average a 28ish for speaks, but if you're rude in any way, you get 26 max.

ways to boost speaks: attach pictures of any pets you have to the email chain, and if you have good opinions about F1 your speaks will skyrocket

minor things that annoy me: taking forever to set your timer for speeches, long roadmaps (seriously just say NC/AC if that's what it is), saying the opp dropped/conceded something when we all know they responded, lying in the 2a (ykwim)

1 - LARP/trad :)

2 - most theory. I don't like frivolous shells, but legitimate abuse justifies it. otherwise I default to DtA > DtD, and also still not sure how I feel abt disclosure. also T of course

≤3 - K/phil (pls explain well, I never ran these and don't know buzzwords)

strike me if you're running tricks. I don't like it and I will probably drop you :)

Please make sure that you are being respectful to your opponent. I won't tolerate intolerance or personal attacks on your opponent. Additionally, if you are speaking so quickly that I can't understand you, I won't be able to properly judge you.

Hello! My name is Calvin McMahon. I am one of the LD debate coaches at Wayzata High School. Before coaching at Wayzata, I debated LD at Champlin Park High School for five years and served as a volunteer instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute for four years. Just writing this paradigm to lay out a few preferences:

• First and foremost, The style of debate and argumentation that is most comfortable to you is probably the style you should use in a round. Twisting yourself into knots to appease a judge is generally a bad idea.

• No need to include me on any email chains!

• Yes I can handle speed/spreading, but in general, the faster you read, the less persuasive I find you. Slower speaking gives me more space to process your arguments emotionally.

• No, I will not tell you to slow down in a round.

• I will not inherently vote against theory, but my burden of proof on those arguments is high, Especially on disclosure theory, which I think should only apply where undeniable issues of equity exist.

• I will not inherently vote against a K but I ask that you as a debater engage in these issues of social justice in good faith as opposed to using them as a cudgel to surprise opponents.

• I will not inherently vote against plans/counter-plans, but I believe that 90% of them could just be normal cases and are needlessly confusing as they are.

• I don't care if you sit or stand.

• If you think you can use your opponent's framework, you probably should.

• Most importantly, always be as kind and courteous to your opponent as possible. Do not laugh at them. Use the correct pronouns. Err on the side of caution when cutting them off in cx.

Todd.mensink@gmail.com

I view myself as a traditional but flexible LD judge. When making a decision I try to keep an open mind, and only consider the arguments that have been presented in the round as they were presented. I don’t believe in filling in the blanks for the debaters. I will entertain any argument as long as it is well explained. Speed is not a problem.

I do believe that the resolution is important, and should be interpreted precisely and with reasonable assumptions about drafters intent. Unless you tell me to do otherwise, In making a decision, I start with the resolution, then move to the value, then the criterion, then the contentions. In most rounds that I hear, the value is basically ignored, but I am happy to listen to debate on the value. In my view, Morality and justice as they are typically presented are not values, at least not ones worth debating. They are broad conceptions that have no meaning unless informed by actual values upon which there can be clash (freedom, responsibility, equality, human life, etc.). Every villain thinks s/he is moral and just, and is when viewed through the values that inform them. The question is, are the values that inform one persons conception of morality more or less valid than those that inform another person’s.

So, when deciding a round, unless you explicitly request that I decide the round in a different way, and either get your opponent to agree or out-debate your opponent on why your judging criteria should be used, I will use what is said in the round to determine: first, what should be valued (generally based on how it links directly into the resolution), second, what criterion should be used to determine if the value is upheld, and finally, which debater best upholds the criterion.

• I am a volunteer and this is my first year being a judge.
• I appreciate clear and slow delivery.
• Please be clear and concise in your final rebuttals so I know your main points and your answers to your opponents arguments.

In case you are wondering….

Hello, My name is Julie Ritz-Schlaifer. I am a family law attorney/mediator, a Past President of Minnesota Women Lawyers, and am currently one of the debate coaches for Minnetonka High School.
I earned both of my degrees, BA summa cum laude in Speech Communications and JD, from the University of Minnesota, where my youngest son, Miles MHS23 is attending. Go Gophers!

I am a former high school speech and debater from Watertown, SD, where I had the good fortune to learn from the legendary Donus D. Roberts (ddr to his students). As a senior, I qualified for Nationals with my original oration “The Lie," and competed at the National Forensic League Tournament in San Francisco in both original oratory and policy debate. While in college, I served as Blake High School's Assistant Debate Director/Coach with esteemed Coach Greg Dawson.

If you speak too quickly, I will not understand your arguments or evidence and cannot base my decision on what you have said. Debate is about persuading the judge, which should be your main focus as you speak. Be organized in your case presentations and rebuttals. And please be cordial to your opponent, especially during cross, even when you clearly disagree with each other. The ability to disarm an argument with a smile on your face as you advocate for your contention using credible evidence in a way that compels a decision in your favor, can be a game changer in a debate round and in life.

bjschmitt1@hotmail.com

Formerly a varsity LD coach in Minnesota (over 10 years ago). I believe value debate is and should be distinct from policy debate. It's fine to talk about real-world implications, but more often than not, too much emphasis on solvency misses the point of what we 'ought' to do vs. what a policymaker would need to do.

Debating what we 'ought' to do should allow debaters more freedom to discuss the values behind our decision-making, instead of focusing on the practicality and implementation (that is why we have policy debate).

The function of the criteria is to help weigh the round - if you and your opponent have the same criteria, that doesn't 'wash' it out of the round - it *should* make for a cleaner debate as both sides agree on the weighing mechanism, but then you need to be really clear about how your side wins using that mechanism. If each side has a different criteria, then it is important to tell me why yours is better AND apply it throughout your case.

I appreciate a thoughtful case which is well-founded in research. I do expect the debate to focus on the core resolution; kritiks need to have a strong link.

Moderately fast speed is fine - I can keep up; but if your definition of 'spreading' is to read at an incomprehensible speed, I don't find it contributes to a healthy debate.

I decide based on the arguments on my flow - substance over style.

Parent Judge of LD debater.

Appreciate clear points, crisply articulated and logically framed starting in the constructive.

No spreading please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some LD-specific stuff:

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

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

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

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

Debate: Make your contentions obvious, don't spread, and don't be an offensive/abusive idiot. I believe that theory (especially disclosure theory) is counterproductive to the debate community and if you run it you will lose my ballot.

Please send your case to my email so that I can pre-flow the round: sasha.warbritton@ephsspeech.org

Speech: If you are not memorized, I will always rank you below someone who has done the work of memorization. In PA, I am looking for well-structured speeches with a good balance of analysis and evidence. Performance quality matters with tone, hand gestures and overall confidence, and while jokes are fun, they are not necessary to win my round. In Interp, I am looking for well defined characters, clear blocking, and a speaker who is fully immersed in their performance.

Debate should be an enjoyable activity. I want you to have fun and a part of that is actually debating the resolution. I like a good framework debate, but it is not all-encompassing for me. I am looking to see who can actually defend their side of the resolution with clear stats, experts, etc. I'm looking for strong evidence and clearly cited cards. Please don't just reference the card title, give me a warrant for its use. Impact your contentions back to your framework! That is where framework weighs the most for me.

I very much appreciate signposting and roadmaps throughout the debate, as well as voters or world comparisons in final rebuttals. I don't love super-spreading to try to confuse or mislead your opponent. I'm also not a fan of theory debate or Ks. Debate the resolution - that is what everyone is preparing for each tournament. I think it is border-line abusive to other debaters (especially from non-circuit schools or those without access to national travel). I am looking for a clean debate of the resolution.

Be polite to one another.

A note on Speaker Points: This is a speech activity, so I am looking for good inflection, articulation, eye contact, etc. My speaker points aren't necessarily related to how well you argued the case, but how well you spoke overall.

Background: I started coaching debate in Texas in 2001. I have been coaching LD in Minnesota since 2019.