My name is Jamie Maiers, and I am a teacher coach at Tartan High School and a PhD student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I have been working with the MNUDL for three years and have been a staff member at MDAW at Augsburg University.

As a judge, I really like an organized debate. I want you to signpost and understand what it is you are actually saying. Spreading is fine, but if I can't understand you (either because you're mumbling OR you don't tell me what you're talking about) we're not going to have a good time. One of your jobs it to persuade me-- feel free to tell me why I should vote for you-- explain your reasonings for why I should give your team the RFD.

Debate is a team sport so treat your partner (and opponents) kindly. Additionally, I expect you to be a good sport.

I am a teacher first, debate coach second. This means I am more than happy to talk to you about ANYTHING you have questions about regarding the round. I leave lots of detailed feedback and am happy to respond to email. It is my goal for all debaters to get better, not just my own students. Feel free to reach out.

jmaiers@isd622.org; maier264@umn.edu

Email: colinabe05@gmail.com

Experience: I am new to the novice packet, but I will do my best to flow and follow along. I am good with speed, but just make sure to slow down on analytics and tags so I can hear what arguments you want me to hear and be able to flow your cards better.

Philosophy: I think debate is a game that improves education and helps with public speaking. I am a tech-over-truth judge.

Affs: I think that affs should make sure to extend their cards and answer the opponent's cards clearly and concisely. I want the aff to tell me the story of the round and how they prove their impacts via proper impact calc.

K's: I don't like K's, and I don't think I ever will. I don't care if I am not preferable to any K debaters; I will still stand by my beliefs. The alt needs to be explained clearly as to how it works in the status quo. You need to prove how the aff links to the K and explain it well. The framework should be explained from both sides, and how I should weigh the round. You also need to prove how the alt solves better and weigh the K's impacts against the aff's impacts, and prove it's worse and will happen now. Finally, warrant it out and explain it clearly. Reading buzzwords doesn't give me enough reason for me to vote unless the aff doesn't answer it well, either.

Novices:I have noticed this in a lot of rounds, but most of the novice teams forget to mention the cards they had from their constructives when going into your rebuttals. Please don't drop your cards and try extending them and analyzing them in the rounds. Then make your arguments in the round. I value argumentation over spreading, so make sure to do that.

Everything else: Tag team is fine, just don't overtake your partner answering the questions. Run whatever floats your boat (that won't make you lose speaker points) and just be good. Don't be toxic in the debate round- you will lose speech points if it happens and that includes laughing silently or loudly.

+0.5 speaks: If you say a joke in your speech once. Multiple times of saying jokes won't increase your speaker points. You will still only get 0.5 speaks.

My view of debate is more inclined toward practical policy or at least a test of a value/philosophical approach which is well grounded in the theory base on which it is derived. Ideally the advocated policy or philosophy should be able to be made actionable, preferably with a clear path toward policy oriented and specifically definable actions.

I have a hard time buying impacts which take too many steps for the initial contention to the final end results. The logic may exist to connect the dots, but every political issue does not cause nuclear war even if your six cards you read have the transitory logic to prove it.

I like to see a clear line-by-line on your arguments. All arguments, evidence and positions have weakness and I appreciate your ability to identify those limitations and point them out.

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:

• Head Coach--Farmington High School (2020-date)

• Co-JV/Varsity coach at Rosemount High School for 6 years (2014-2020)

• Head Coach--Forest Lake, MN (1995-2000)

• Assistant Coach--Mankato East (1993-1995)

• Concordia College (1989-1993) (NDT twice)

• Rosemount High School (1985-1989)

• Staff--Concordia College Debate Institute, Minnesota Debate and Advocacy Workshop (MDAW)

• Committee to develop the Novice Packet in Minnesota

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. Ask me for my email.

Top Shelf:

Generally more tech>truth. I debated in a world where the K was brand new and my partner and I won a lot of rounds on rhetoric K’s. K’s that relate to more traditional political concepts make the most sense for me (Cap, Biopower, Neolib, Abolition, Feminism, IR, etc) in the context of a policy debate round. I was not a philosophy major and I don’t get all excited about the nuances of Baudrillard, or other high theory topics. Lots of big, academic words don’t impress me and honestly, I probably don’t understand them in the same way you do so if you choose to run args like that, know that I probably don’t interpret the distinctions you are making in the same way you do and I don’t really see how or why that arg is relevant to the debate round unless you explain it in real world (ie: the way non debate entrenched people) terms.

To be transparent, I am increasingly concerned that the debate space i being rarified to a degree that is irresponsible academically. All too often I see high school debaters simply parroting the phrasing and thought processes of their coaches about very complex and nuanced philosophical concepts. I teach high school students every day. There is a developmental and congnitive difference between high school and college students. I am not inclined to believe that the debate I see on these topics is created by the debater, but rather by the coach. That is problematic to me.

Other thoughts...

Policy maker at heart--I’d rather think about the consequences of plan than about academic discussion of high theory

If I don’t understand your argument, I don’t want to vote on it. Signposting will probably help you here.

If I can’t understand you (spreading, etc), I can’t vote on it

I won‘t judge kick for you. It was your strategy, not mine.

In this technological world, Disclosure Theory args strike me as a whine unless there is some sort of egregious situation that occurs.

I am a teacher and I look at debate through that lens. Education is the main reason why I do this activity.

I believe that the argument construction provided by Toulmin (claim/data/warrant) is the bedrock upon which competitive debate has been built.

I don't like judge intervention, you should be telling me how to vote in the final two rebuttals.

Online debate: I coached and ran tournaments during COVID. I do know that smart debaters will sacrifice a degree or two of speed in order to improve the clarity. I will tell you if you are not clear. I don’t want folks talking over each other during cross-ex. I will be patient with tech, but also mindful that we have a schedule and it is best to stick to that. If tech issues become extreme, I’ll ask the tab room how they want to proceed. I will probably not have my camera on so get verbal confirmation that I am there and ready to go before you start speaking.

I am also a fan of debaters being good human beings. Being kind, polite and remembering that we are all humans 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 inexperienced at one point, as well. Additionally, I believe people should be consistent, both in terms of their arguments and, in the world of the K, in their advocacy. Post-Rounding me is also not cool. My decision is my decision and that will be your privilege when you are a judge.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask.

Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2023-2024 Notes
St. Paul Central Volunteer
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy save a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates last year (2022-2023).

General notes: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.

Argument notes after judging a semester of policy debates, including TOC-qualifying tournaments, after a dozen years off: debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I stopped judging a while back. I have no problem keeping up with you all. I at least sort of read along with speech docs. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face.

If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way that I have noticed that it feels like I think about debates differently now is that I am less inclined and a harder sell on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility.

BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.

ETA February 2024: I know my points are too low. I'm trying to fix this. Sorry about that - please don't take it personally.

I'm Sandy! I use they/them (ENG) or elle (ESP) pronouns. Please add me onto your email chains! My email is: boltonbarrientosdebate@gmail.com

2024 will be my twelfth year in the MNUDL :O

Talk to me about Spanish Debate!!!!!!!

• 1st year as the Spanish debate coach for Minneapolis South
• 4th year as the novice policy debate coach for Minneapolis South
• Debated for Roosevelt H.S. for 4 years
• Debated for Keewaydin M.S. for 3 years

Tag team is fine but I would love it if you high fived your partner when you do it. I won't enforce this preference in any way other than telling you at the beginning of the debate and it won’t have any speaker point consequences. I just think it's a great way to navigate cross-ex with your partner in a way that's balanced, equitable, and fun!

I highly value story-telling and big picture analysis in your speeches. I love a 1AC that's narrative (i.e. internal link chain) is easy to understand. I love a 2AR overview that tells me in enough detail the story of the AFF and why its impacts matter in the debate. I love a K 2NR that flips the script of the 1AC to tell me why the links actually do matter in the greater context of liberation and structural violence.

What does this mean for you practically?

• When listening to the impact debate (on any flow-- framework, T, theory, kritikal or policy strategies), I'm looking for you to strategically and persuasively tell me why the impact is the most important thing in the round. Exaggerate! Tell me it's "try or die" for the AFF/NEG! Minimize your opponents' impact any chance you get! Abandon phrases like "might happen" or "could solve" and replace it with "will happen" and "absolutely solves". Don't be afraid to use impact calculus. Of course, these framing tools require warrants just like any other argument, but they really make a difference in if I will confidently vote for you or not.

• Speaking of warrants for your impacts, you need coherent internal link chains. Telling me "vote AFF to avoid nuclear war" in your rebuttals isn't enough. It's important to answer questions like: War with who? When? And of course, what's the connection to the AFF's solvency? Telling me the "AFF makes capitalism worse" isn't enough; What part of capitalism? Over-consumption? Labor exploitation? Extractive logic? Wealth hoarding?

• Advocacy statements and solvency should be clearly and consistently explained and extended for both AFF and NEG (if applicable). If you're AFF, that's obviously the whole thing, but just please do make sure to consistently compare the efficacy of the AFF to any alternative NEG advocacies.

(I know alternatives are tricky to explain and defend, and I'm pretty sympathetic to K debaters as a former K debater myself. I do think the Alternative is a pretty cool part of the debate. I'm really interested in radical movement building and how communities organize to make change, if that's a helpful frame to consider when thinking about how you would explain your alternative to me. Feel free to email me with questions!)

• Compare your arguments with your opponents -- clash is king!
• Communicate effectively -- if you're so fast you're unintelligible, or if your Kritik blocks are so dense nobody in the round understands what's going on, that is on you.
• Evidence is really important, but I have a pretty expansive understanding of evidence: storytelling, anecdotes, poetry, dance, journals, zines, prose, scientific journals, history, accounts, common sense thinking, etc. are all forms of evidence that can generate knowledge and prove your arguments.

• For the sake of being honest about my implicit biases, I will admit this: I do not have the brain for theory debates. I find things like aspec, condo, intrinsic perms bad, etc. really challenging to flow and follow and as a result, I don't typically include them on my ballots. Sometimes theory happens because it must or because it's Rosebowl, and I get it. But if you're wondering if you should include your A-Z spec blocks in front of me, maybe wait for a different judge lol.

• I was a K debater in high school. I'm definitely still really interested in Kritikal literature as a person involved in community organizing and who is an Indigenous Studies major. If you're curious about Kritiks, want feedback on strategies, or just to talk through ideas -- please talk to me! I can definitely provide more specific comments and ideas on: abolition, settler colonialism and coloniality, indigenous and Chicanx feminisms, and queer theory. This is not to say I'll vote for Kritiks all the time or that I won't get your policy strategy. Run whatever you want.

• Please define your acronyms before you use them!

• As opposed to Abbie "Big A" Amundsen (<3), I am a big fan of overviews!

Have fun! Be nice! Stay organized! That's all it takes.

I am a lay parent judge who competed in high school speech (extemporaneous speaking) for several years. I had limited experience with LD debate. This is my first time judging policy debate.

Policy Debate Judging Notes

I am generally comfortable with the arguments in the novice case limits. I am fine with tag teaming in cross-ex as long as you do not dominate your partner's questioning time. 

I am generally fine with spreading, but within reason. Be coherent while spreading, and I will have no issue with your speed.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Judging Notes

Value/framework debates have a place in LD. You should convince me that your value/criterion is stronger than that of your opponents by providing solid contentions that clearly support your value/criterion.

Respond to your opponent's arguments. Failing to address the opponent's arguments suggests you either agree with the arguments or do not have counterarguments.

General Comments

Any hate speech will result in an automatic drop and a loss in speaker points. You will also be reported to Tabroom. I expect respectful behavior.

he/him

Debated Policy at Highland Park in Saint Paul for 4 years

Also debate parli in college if you care lol

Currently coaching for Highland Park

put me on the chain - ziglaser@gmail.com

NOVICE ONLY

1. Extensions wise, if parts of an argument aren't contested and you don't extend them explicitly, I'll still probably give them to you. I get it, novice debate is hard, and focusing on the areas of clash is important and takes a lot of time.

2. Keep talking. Please. If you have anything you could possibly say about the debate, say it if otherwise you are going to sit down 1/2 way through your 2NC.

3. Do impact calculus, and when you do, you should be comparing it to the other team, e.g. "Even if they win that long-term economic growth causes global warming, short-term economic decline still causes our impact, which kills us first."

General Stuff

I will vote for or against any argument that isn't on face offensive (ie racism good). I am a big believer in tech (what is truth even?), but anyone that claims to be tabula rasa is lying--we all have biases that influence what we find persuasive. Just know that if I'm adjudicating direct clash between reality and BS, it'd be helpful to argue what you think I want to hear.

I like CX, let's keep it that way. I'm sometimes snarky, but there is a fine line between snarky and rude, and I'd prefer if you don't cross it. I get it's hard to come up with questions and prep, so I won't take it out on your speaks if you're bumbling through: "so, uh, why doesn't you internal link fail" for 3 min, but I will reward good CX, and note key concessions.

+5 speaks for Jake Swede metaphors or anecdotes.

Neg Stuff

T - I loved it before I went for it too much (T/To all the way!), then I hated it, and now... we're chill. I will vote straight tech on T. Unless it's an argument, I don't care whether an aff is the most common on the topic or never read before. I generally default to competing interpretations but am willing to vote on reasonability. "Reasonability" does not include the argument "the aff is reasonably topical" and if you are trying to make that argument, to quote my coach, the amazing Lily Endo, out of context: "I will stare intensely at you for as long as it takes you to realize this is not a winning argument."

CP - I'm willing to vote on any counterplan and any counterplan theory. While Conditionality is probably most persuasive, Condo is a weird argument for me because abuse-wise it's like what SCOTUS Justice Stewart once wrote on porn "I can't define it for you, but I know it when I see it".

DAs - Like 'em. I like Politics. A lot. Please give me a good politics debate. I also like other disads. 0 risk is possible.

Ks - Links matter a lot. Links of omission are not links if the affirmative wins they're links of omission. I was once told to impact turn settler colonialism by a judge. DON'T IMPACT TURN SETTLER COLONIALISM. (to be clear I do think there are legit impact turns on Ks, Cap, Biopower, etc). I suppose this is where I'll spot the generic "don't be a terrible human being" line. Don't. Debate should be fun above all else and I will call you out in round.

An exception to my general open debate principle--I don't want to listen to Puar's nonsense. She is ridiculously ableist, anti-semetic, queerphobic, and terrible for debate. Save it for another judge, or better yet, don't read her. Also, I don't want to hear denial of stuff on a crimes against humanity scale--climate denial, genocide denial etc creates uniquely bad discourse and I will drop you on face and we will have a long chat.

FWK - I'm pretty centrist here. I think the case for framework is strongest when it's actually T. 1-off FWK is boring, why not come up with some dumb off-case you won't go for too? I'm more likely to vote on new/creative fwk arguments than a team heirloom that's been read for 10 years.

K affs - I think they're pretty neat. I've always run a policy aff but quite enjoy being in rounds vs a K aff. That said, clowning on the edging on abusive vagueness of most k-affs is the most fun you can have in debate, and I probably have a much lower bar for voting on presumption than most.

Aff stuff

I never feel like the aff gets enough play in a paradigm, so I'll try to say a few things.

1. If the neg drops major parts of case, I need a sentence or two of story, but nothing beyond that. Name the authors that matter to the rest of the debate.

2. You probably should get to weigh some part of the aff against a K, though what that looks like needs to be argued. I think policy affirmatives create as much discourse as a Kritik which could be positive or negative.

3. The 1AR is the hardest speech in the round, but by god don't make it the least organized. Stick to the flows and you'll be A-OK.

Definitely Unironic Personal Beliefs

???? Bowties are cool ????

???? Cap Good ????

???? 20 Nurses in Rural Michigan is all this world needs ????

???? God is Dead ????

Myles Goode is a sophomore at Augsburg University who majors in Mathematics with a Minor in Accounting. They use they/them pronouns. They have lots of experience in public speaking; they did forensics for 5 years and judged for 1 year.

SFHS 2024, LD debate all 4 years, been to state twice.

This is my second time judging (JV Novice State—Eagan 2023)so it’d be nice if you could signpost and speak clearly.

+.2 speaks if you refer to me exclusively as “your majesty” the whole round.

that’s all. Have fun ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jents

My preferred name is Ash but in round probably just call me judge. My preferred name isn't on tab for safety reasons, please do not comment on this.

I prefer any neopronouns (like xe/xem, ze/zir, ae/aer or any others you know excluding it/its) but they/them is okay if necessary.

If there is an email chain, email me at sashahascats@gmail.com

This is my second year as a debater so I apologize if I don't understand something that I should understand.

I run pretty much only kritikal arguments so I am a bit more understanding of those arguments but as long as you argue well I'll be willing to vote for anything that is won.

I am a 2A so I have more experience with what 2As and 1Ns should do but I will still do my best to give everyone in a round advice.

I'm not the fastest at flowing so I would prefer it if you slowed down significantly on any arguments that are analytical and short if you want me to be able to hear that.

Also, I don't have very good hearing so please make sure you prioritize clarity and projecting.

If you reference will wood/will wood and the tapeworms in a way that makes it clear you know more than their name, I will give you +0.1 speaks unless you are offensive in the round. If you can reference my favorite will wood song by chance, +0.2

Tabula Rasa judge

I use 5 primary criteria to determine the winner of a debate: Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance.

Yena Koo (she/her)

Edina'24

Please add me to the email chain!! --> yenakoo19@gmail.com

Novices/Policy:

Speed --> I am fine with speed, spread through whatever you want in your constructive speeches but BE CLEAR and slow down a little on your tags and analytics.

I don't care if you tag team if both teams are okay with it (just don't abuse it --- example being cutting your partner off)

I am fine with whatever you run as long as the arguments you are presenting are well articulated/developed (that being said, just do your best!).

I'm not gonna time your speeches, prep, or cx.

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc...

Reference Sabeeh Mirza's paradigm for further info.

Brief note for LD/PF: All of my experience is in policy debate. I am less familiar with the norms of other formats. I believe that I would be considered a larper in LD terms.

Note: I enjoy a joke arg, but you must commit to the bit!!!! Additionally, I am keeping track of some UM Brooks treasure for Skye.

I was a college debater for Concordia Moorhead. I am comfortable judging both policy and critical arguments. Do note that I ran mostly biopower and cap, so I may not be as familiar with other kriticks. During the final rebuttals I want you to write my ballot for me. In other words, tell me the story of the debate round and why I should conclude that you have won. That means impact comparison, framing, and condensing the debate down to its core components.

I don't like it when debaters sacrifice clarity to speak faster. I will stop flowing if I have to call clear an excessive number of times. I also really don't like it when you slow down for the tag and speed up for the card body. To me, that says that your evidence isn't meaningful or significant and I should treat the body of cards as just filler. I will call speed if you're going too fast for me to flow.

I like it when you give a speech off your flow without any blocks.

Specific Notes:

Theory- I expect you to slow down for denser theory blocks. Otherwise, I cannot evaluate arguments I cannot write down. I will vote on theory, but I don't have any dogmatic stances on issues like conditionality or PIC/Ks.

The K- I enjoy k vs policy aff debates. I don't think you need an alt if you have won sufficient offense on their reps or epistemology, but a strong alt makes it easier to vote for you.

K affs- I will vote for K affs, but I expect robust answers to framework.

DAs/counterplan- I am waiting for the day an aff team puts theory voters on a politics DA.

Topicality- I have judged mostly novice this year, so I'm not up to date on the T meta. I want to see more T debate in Minnesota, so I will be happy to see some T.

Overall, good luck and have fun. I want debate to be a fun and educational experience for all participants. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Please include me in the email chain, but I try to avoid reading evidence unless absolutely needed.

email:

johnxkrueger@gmail.com

For High School Novice/Middle School:

basically please just have fun and be kind to each other! debate should be about learning and having a good time so don't say anything offensive and stay on topic and we should be good. i will answer basic questions like speech times and stuff during the round, but after round i'll answer just about any question you ask me. please time yourselves since it's a good habit to get into, and if there's an email chain please add me to it.

i'll give you a 0.2 boost in speaks if you add in a song title from 1989 (TV) by taylor swift

About me:

hi :) my name is eleanor (she/her) eleanorlasalle31@gmail.com

i'm a debater for central high school, though i also did two years of middle school debate for hidden river before that!

She/her - respecting others pronouns is non negotiable

I’m currently a coach at Washburn HS, and a former varsity debater for St Paul Central HS. As a debater I was the 2N/1A and leaned towards using Ks and soft left affs

Judging -

Idc what you call me in round but if you're going to use my first name try to pronounce it right (Mar - in)

TLDR - I’ll vote on anything (within ethical bounds) as long as it’s argued + explained well
If you’re a middle schooler read the first 3 sections of my paradigm at least.

Round procedure -

Feel free to ask questions before the round begins, as well as in round as long if it is about procedure

If I’m making origami or something don’t worry I’m still paying attention

I am fairly lax and won't be a huge stickler about certain procedural things, just run them by me before you try anything. I am very empathetic to tech issues; my computer was usually the tech issue... I try to help bridge any accessibility problems that come up (tbh working tech is a privilege that debate takes for granted).

I do allow tag teaming in cross, just please split the time evenly. In speeches however try to avoid talking to your partner during their speech because that’s a pet peeve of mine.

I keep my own timer in round, but also have another for yourself because I am forgetful sometimes.

Presentation/speaks -

Speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying there's less of a chance I will flow it. I am not the fastest at flowing, but on analytics slow down.

I can flow fast spreading for the most part, but please justify the need to speak insanely fast. It won’t add to your speaks if you’re not using that extra time you’re making for yourself to make your arguments more complex.

Make sure to stand up and face the judge (me) while speaking (even during CX), if able.

Pet peeve of mine is unlabeled flows - please label them to make my life easier. It makes it harder to organize my flows so it increases the chance something will be misflowed - and also I WILL name them myself if not given a name, and many people across debate can attest to my unserious naming conventions.

Make sure to use all your time in all speeches - this includes cross-ex!

Please be civil - hateful language or actions will not be tolerated and result in immediate deduction from speaker points (if not an auto L) and an email to your coach.

Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

I like it when constructives are numbered and/or specifically telling me what argument a card is responding to.

You should be pausing, saying “next” (or the like), or changing tone when you start reading a new card’s tag.

Don’t give me overviews or underviews in any of the first 3 constructives unless you really think it is beneficial on a certain flow.

In rebuttals you should be explicitly telling me what I should be voting on and how I should be weighing arguments - write my ballot for me.

Minimize new flows in the block.

Yay direct and explicit clash!!

Tech—O—————Truth

Aff -

I have slightly lower standards for presumption ballots, but mostly comes down to lack of extended warrants. I usually air on the negative side if the aff fails to extend solvency.

I have lower standards for IL chains, unless the neg blows it up.

With me framing will be your friend, especially if you have extinction scenarios.

CPs -

As with any advocacy, you should be clearly explaining what it does and how it has any solvency/net benefits.

I prefer articulated perms but if the neg drops it I’ll vote on very little. I also prefer only one perm, but if multiple are argued and justified well (as well as clearly explaining how they work and the context of them in round) I’m okay with it.

PICs annoy me so I have a low burden for PIC theory.

I have been told I don’t make it clear enough how annoyed I get with most policy CPs in general, so just run them well.

DAs -

The links and IL chain will make or break these for me - defend them with your life.

Prove to me why it o/ws case or takes out a significant enough portion of it.

Kritiks -

Because I am an experienced K debater, I am both a good and bad judge for them. I am probably a bit biased towards well run Ks, but I will not be forgiving with poorly run Ks.

Make sure you explain to the fullest degree anyway if you are running a K because they can be tricky. Walk me through the story of the k and tell me why it o/ws case.

Please don’t just throw around buzz words - they don't mean anything on their own. I know a lot of the high philosophy concepts/definitions, I just usually can't immediately mentally access them while they are being spread through at 300 wpm so explanation is incredibly important.

Signpost your k sections!! - especially in the block and 1ar.

I have trouble flowing fast FW analytics so slow down and make sure its clear.

I am not a fan of non-UQ (oh wow we live in a society) or use-of-state links but I’ll vote on them if they are explained with how it relates to the K impacts.

I have fairly high standards for impact turns, but it mostly comes down to explanation.

Same deal as with CP perms - I'm not a fan of perm walls but I'll vote on them.

Ks are my favorite don’t disrespect them please T-T

Theory and topicality -

I understand most theory/topicality as long as it’s not super niche but please explain it like I’ve never heard of it before - I won’t vote on it if you don’t tell why I should care about it in round. I am not the fastest flow-er of analytics so you HAVE to slow down.

If you start new theory flows after the 1NC/2AC make them relevant or else I will NOT care.

The buzz word standards are the ones I’m most likely to get lost in. It’s fine to only briefly explain during the constructives, but you need to contextualize/impact them during the rebuttals if you want me to care.

In my opinion, voters are not implicit - it's fine ig if you don't have them in the 1NC/2AC but in all further speeches you need to at least mention them.

You don't need to fully explain why theory is prefiat but at least give me like a sentence, don't just drop that and expect me to default to it.

I'm pretty wary of theory tbh, so if you roll up with like 7 theory flows I'm going to be more forgiving if the other side drops something.

Joke args -

I love joke args with my full heart because I believe its one of the little things that make this entire activity worth it sometimes, but there is a time and place for them, as well as the content they project should follow basic ethical standards.

If you do run a joke arg you have to be 100% in it - confidence is key! Look me straight in the eyes while you affirm that the fly spaghetti monster controls the planet. If both teams are in it, this is the most likely time I’ll award 30s lol

My email is marenjlien@gmail.com- please put me on any email chain. If you have any after round questions that aren’t answered in my ballot feel free to email me about it, I’m happy to explain anything.

Cheeky document names or any star trek references will earn you extra speaks. A 30 if you play a musical instrument instead of a constructive.

Nick Meyer – (He/Him) – njmeyer915@gmail.com Use the email above for any email chains during the round. Hi, I was an Eagan High School Debater 2019-2023, and I am currently a business major at the University of St. Thomas.

Logistics: I am new to the novice packet. I am good with speed, just slow down on analytics. I don’t have any problems with any arguments. Tag team is fine if you aren’t asking the questions for your partner.

Speaker Points:

If you’re racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist, you know the drill: I will give you the lowest number of speakers points I possibly can.

If you have any questions, you can email me at njmeyer915@gmail.com or speak to me in-person.

Hi I'm tom and I go by He/Him pronouns. I am currently The head coach for Roosevelt High school and have been debating for 7 years. I am currently a student at Augsburg.

Please add me to the email chain: Tommilmick@gmail.com

I have debated at all levels of debate and am very familiar with all arguments. For most of my time as a debater I was a strictly policy debater. My normal rounds would usual look like either a soft left policy arg on aff and a Cp and Da heavy neg. However in my last year of debate I heavily used Ks on both the aff and neg specifically Dino earth ( If you want to learn more or have any questions you can ask or email me about it i really enjoy it). My Kritik literature is pretty deep so I can vote on a lot of it. I think debate is about having fun and making arguments that you truly care about and are interested in.

I will vote for any form of argument (Except Baurillard Ks) you make but you have to give me clear reasons why and have a good foundation of evidence for it.

How I weigh most debate args:

Tech -o-------- Truth

bmorgan.debate@gmail.com

my pronouns are she/her

*my experience is in policy, if im judging you in a different category, please have patience

run whatever seems best to you, i won't automatically vote down any position (assuming you have the decency to keep things respectful - if what you're reading are arguing is harmful, that takes precedent over any debate rules)

most (not all) of the notes below are for the neg, i will vote for pretty much any aff that can prove they solve a problem that they have also proven is more important than that of the neg. i also like creativity, and am certainly not opposed to voting for a K-aff, policy gets stale sometimes anyways.

K's

you have to explain each part of your K flow for me to consider it voteable. if your alt solvency is talking about revolution, and your alt is a mental rejection, you would need to explain how those fit together.

continuing with alts, I need to know if you mean for the alt to be a fiated action like "we go anarchist sicko mode and overthrow the state" or if it's in round and you achieve solvency by spreading that K to me and the other debaters

affs who focus entirely on the link side of a K debate are generally not on top of things, obviously it can work, but its much more convincing if you can meet the K at a critical level instead of avoiding its content with a 10 foot pole. debate the whole K.

CP's

this is my favorite type of arg, especially against affs that force the neg to defend an awful status quo. your CP needs an explicit net benefit and generics such as states or actor cps are hard to do right and generally not very convincing. if your main net benefit is a solvency deficit you need to do as much work on harms as the aff did in the 1AC. teams who bring up perm theory are goated.

DA's

big stick DA's are lame. your impact should be geared towards outweighing the aff in the same world the aff lives in. big stick can only beat soft left if the aff majorly goofs it, or if you win a tech over truth debate - possible, but a lot of extra work. similarly if the aff is about preventing mass death, then your impact should shoot for something similar.

if you make me laugh, you instantly get at least a minimum of 28 speaker points.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

TLDR:Debate should be about having fun and learning. Debate what you want but nothing matters to me until you explain why it should.

Round Framing:

"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." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. To not do this will subtract -.5 pts from both teammate's scores.
• Both teams can agree to do a 'Challenge Round' where I will not backfill using the documents to fill in holes in your speech and depend entirely on your clarity of communication to flow. Both teams will receive a +1 pts to their scores for doing this.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will be sad. This should not discourage you from asking, but instead I hope it forces you to consider what they didn't read. You should make it obvious why what they didn't read mattered, and prevent them from getting away with reading ~1/3 of the words. Sometimes it won't matter, sometimes it will. If you attempt to explain I won't decrease speaks, but if no attempt is made I will hit you with a -.2.
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped post-Covid. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: bad organization, giving up large amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make The Point of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the flow and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have clicked save. If it takes >1m to attach and send the email, you should count that as prep time.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line. (You should still explain what arg you are referencing ie: "They say the economy is strong, our williams 1922 card shows that the economy is really weak in the horse market!!!"
• I think you should send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block. To do so will give you a +.5.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

• De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
• Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list, but these are areas that I think most of the debaters can specifically improve on when I judge.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and also debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, a functional limit of parts of the NFA-LD circuit, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find evaluator/policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects how I should evaluate the impacts, which would be really good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read important evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, but I will read the article as a whole and not just read your highlighting of it. I will not use the unhighlighted portions for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them. When specifying that I should read a card of the opponent's, you explain what I'm specifically looking for if you want me to understand the request.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. I will reward unique & comprehensible standards/criteria with +.5 pts. (Non-unique: Ground, Limits, etc.)

I default to competing interpretations, but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (literally >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Reading cards straight down on the DA without including them in your explanation is gross.

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, but I won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Affirmatives get the same treatment when the 2AR goes for the 1-sentence 2AC arg, or the 2AR goes hard on the :10s condo bad.

Emphasize key arguments, and do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author's claims.

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Definition (Interpretation of Topicality), Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but more robust.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

Debate History:

4 years debating in Wisconsin from 1999-2003.

Coaching @ Washington Technology Magnet School in Saint Paul since 2013.

First off - yes, you can tag team so long as it doesn't turn into a yelling fight.

Generally, I take points off for using too much speech time, not using all your time, being overly aggressive without warrant during CX, saying things that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

In the old days, I would have just called myself TABS (Tabula Rosa, or blank slate.) In general, I'm comfortable voting on most kinds of arguments, although I often find myself deciding many JV and V rounds on framework due to a lack of clash elsewhere in the debate.

My background is in Chemistry and Physics, so I have at best a debate level knowledge of much of the K literature. That being said, I'm very comfortable with the technical aspects of debate, so label your arguments well and explain yourself in your rebuttals and I should have a good idea about what is going on. That said, I'm sensitive to punching down, so if you have a "funny" aff be careful that it is also respectful.

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!

I truly hate being addressed as "judge" during rounds. Please call me Katie :)

I have experience debating in both high school and college (Michigan State, go green!) and have coached high schoolers. I have a BA in social policy from MSU and an MBA from UMN. I work for a beverage distributor as a data and operations analyst.

email: kathryn.stoecker@gmail.com

---

I consider myself a blank slate or "tabula rasa" judge meaning that I believe that there are no fixed rules in debate and that the rules should instead be debated in round. By this I mean that if a team says something that the opposing team objects to, it is not my place to make a call on who is on the side of truth or what is fair based on my own logic on what should be or the role of the ballot. I want to hear developed arguments telling me why something needs to be voted on and why I should prefer that interpretation over that of the opposing team.

In conjunction with that belief, I really want to hear in round story telling. Please paint me a picture of your impact scenarios and use impact comparison early and often. I love a powerful global overview at the top of the 2c. While line by line is incredibly important, try not to get so into the weeds that I can’t remember the story of the argument. In a perfect world, your impact calc heavy overviews on the 2r would be what I write on my ballot as the RFD. It’s in your best interest to not make me think too hard about the round and sort through it on my own. Don’t leave it up to chance – tell me why if you were the judge you’d objectively vote for your team. Tell what what I'm voting on and more importantly, why. "Even if you grant them X, we still win because of Y" arguments are very powerful for me.

Please engage with the warrants of the evidence being read in the round. When both teams read evidence that directly contradict each other, I need clear reasons to prefer one piece of evidence over the other. Please do not make me read the cards for myself to figure it out—that’s your job and honestly you don’t want to leave that up to chance either. It’s in your best interest to spoon feed me.

Due to my own debate background, I prefer policy-based arguments and realism frameworks, but as stated above, I will vote for anything if the work is being done. That being said, if you’re going to read something high theory or performative you need to be ready to sell me the framework. You wanna blow up the earth or advocate for extinction? Cool, but the framework needs to be there. Also, for the love of god, please be able to explain your author’s arguments in your own words without ivory tower rhetoric. Reading Deleuze in my spare time so that I can understand your K is not my job.

Unless you give me a developed reason otherwise, I’m reluctant to vote on theory arguments that can’t prove actual abuse. Theory debates are how we decide the rules so I rather not create rules unless there is a clear reason we need that rule. Conversely, I find proven in round abuse arguments to be very compelling. This is the issue for which I’m most likely to deviate from my blank slate philosophy.

Being able to read the speech doc is not an excuse not to flow. Flowing promotes better engagement with the substance of the arguments rather than just aimless coverage. I’m probably not looking at your speech doc myself since I’m old and we didn’t have those when I was a debater, so I need to be able to actually hear and understand you during your speech because I’m actually flowing every argument. I am completely fine with speed as long as clarity is prioritized. I'll shout "clear" or volume" during your speech if I can't hear/understand you well enough to flow without the speech doc in front of me. I also went to a lot of concerts in my youth without ear protection so now my hearing leaves something to be desired. Please be loud and please don’t hunch over your laptop. Hunching over your laptop compresses your diaphragm and makes you way harder to hear with makes you way harder to flow which makes you way harder to vote for.

I'd prefer that you don't tag team in CX unless it's really necessary. If you really need something to be asked then sure go for it, but this should be the exception not the rule. Tag team CX should not be plan A.

And this really doesn't need to be said but for real don't be a jerk. Debate's just a fun game we play. Don't take it too seriously.

Rosemount High School (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (Rosemount HS, 1987-1991), 2 years CEDA (Truman State - formerly NE Missouri St 1991-1993)
Coaching/Judging Experience: 32 years judging, 18 of these actively coaching
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

New 2022-11-19 / Clarified 2023-12-2

Building on evidence highlighting argued below. If the highlighted portion of your evidence is word salad and/or changes the author's intent when read in isolation, I will stop the round and immediately vote on an ethical violation. This means a loss and minimum allowable points to the offending team. National circuit evidence standards are atrocious and need to be changed. This may be quixotic, but so be it.

The note about stopping the round will be only when evidence is taken out of context. In other circumstances, particularly (but not limited to) where cards are formed by taking one to four words from each of ten or more sentences, I will treat the argument as an analytic with no evidence support.

--

Yes, email chain.

I have changed the email address I use for email chains. The old one will still work, but please use wodarz.debate@gmail.com going forward

New 2021-10-02: Your evidence highlighting should read in grammatically correct sentences when read in isolation. I will consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis (generally, there should be a legitimate argumentative purpose for doing otherwise).

None of the older profile information below is out-of-date, feel free to refer to it for additional information.

I'm definitely an older coach but I like a lot of what K debate has brought to the community. I'm unique among the Rosemount coaching staff in that respect.

I most enjoy judging rounds where the aff and the neg have an underlying agreement on how the round should look. I prefer to judge either policy v policy debates or K v K debates.

Some details:

* I prefer that the negative engage with the affirmative. The better the specificity of link arguments, the more likely the negative is to win their chosen arguments.

* I roughly think of my judging philosophy as "least intervention". My hope is to try to not do any work for debaters, but this is the ideal and rarely occurs in practice. So I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part. I do my best to not interject personal beliefs into the debate, but realize this isn't always possible.

* I don't like most process or actor CPs, but often vote for them. When neg CP lit says a topic should be left to the states, that lit never means "all 50 states act in concert" but instead usually means "states should be free to not do anything". Affs could do a lot with this, but never do.

* I despise politics DAs, but again find myself voting for them. In 30+ years of debating and judging these, I think I've heard one scenario that had any semblance of truth to it. I think negative over-simplification of the political process and the horse-race mentality engendered by these DAs has been bad for debate and bad for society as a whole. But again, I rarely see Affs making the arguments necessary to win these sort of claims.

* I have a debate-level knowledge of most Kritiks. My knowledge of the literature is about 20 years old at this point and I rarely cut cards for my teams. What this means if you're running a K (either aff or neg): assume that I'm a judge who is willing to listen to (and often vote for) what you say, but don't assume any specific knowledge. This is particularly important at the impact level. If I have a warranted and detailed explanation as to why your model of debate is essential,

* In debates between similarly skilled teams, Framework debates usually come down to "is the aff in the direction of the resolution?". If so, I usually vote aff. Otherwise, neg. If you're a policy team, you're probably better off going for even a Cap K in front of me than for Framework.

* Even in person, you're not as clear as you think you are. This is doubly so in online debates. Slow down a little and you'll likely be happier with my decision.

* It's come to my attention that some teams have shied away from going for theory because of what I've written below. If you believe your violation is true, go ahead and go for it. My preference is to decide debates on the issues, but if I can get good clash on a theory or T flow, that's OK too.

* Disclosure theory is exempt from the preceding bullet. If you can win the debate on disclosure theory, there are better arguments you can make that you can also win on.

* If you're a big school on the circuit where I'm judging you, running a "small schools DA" will likely see speaker points reduced.

* I don't like a 6+ off neg strategy. If you're obviously far more skilled than your opponents and still do this, speaker points will suffer. Regardless, I'm probably more likely to vote on condo bad or perf con than most judges (but see everything else I've written on theory)

* I love good topicality debates. I also love creative (but defensible) affirmative interpretations of the topic. I default to "good is good enough"/reasonability for the aff on topicality, but can be persuaded to vote for the competing interps model. Just saying "reasonability invites judge intervention" isn't enough though. Believe it or not, so does competing interps.

==============

Older Profile:

I actively coached from 1993 until 2001 before largely leaving the activity for a dozen years. I got back into coaching in 2013 and have been in the activity since then. My time away from the activity proved to profoundly affect the way I view debates.

I view debate as an educational activity and my primary responsibility as a judge as facilitating that education. It is important to note what this means and what it does not mean. What it does not mean is that I like arguments that impact in "voting issue for reasons of education." Leaving aside the irony of the lack of educational value in those sorts of arguments, I am not saying that I will vote for the "more educational" team, whatever that means. What I do mean is that the round can be a very educational environment and my position is to assist that as best as I can. Argumentatively, I am looking for well-reasoned logical arguments, preferentially with strong evidential support. Counterplans which are contingent on successful consultation of any sort are almost always lacking here. Almost all politics DAs that I've ever heard have this problem as well. You're going to have a much easier time if you run a DA, CP, or a K with a solid literature-based link story.

Theory and Analytics: In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. I have a large presumption against voting on theory, although I have voted on it. To win on theory, you'll probably need to spend substantial time in the last rebuttal and offer a persuasive story. SLOW DOWN when arguing theory. Give me a tag that I can get on my flow and then explain it. Five consecutive four word responses will likely get the first one or two responses flowed, and the rest missed. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote on it. The explanation is the most important part of the argument.

Topicality: Topicality stems from plan action. Placing the resolution in plan text or looking to solvency do not prove topicality. My default view is that if the affirmative interpretation provides an equitable division of ground and plan meets their interpretation, they will win the argument. Generally speaking, if the negative wins topicality, they win the debate. I have been persuaded to vote contrary to my default views in the past. The negative need not win that their interpretation is best for debate, but it helps.

Non-traditional Affirmatives: I don't insist that the affirmative run a plan but any planless aff better be prepared to explain how they engage the resolution. I'm much more willing to accept a non-traditional interpretation of the terms of the resolution than I am to accept an aff that completely ignores the resolution or runs counter to the direction of the resolution.

Evidence sharing/email chains: As of 2017, I have updated my philosophy on these. I would now like to get all speech docs that are shared. Please add me to any email chain using wodarz.debate@gmail.com. Please note that I will not use the speech doc to help flow your speech.

One notable change for the worse over the last decade is the terrible practices that paperless debating has fostered. I approve of paperless debating in the abstract and in a good deal of its implementation, but teams have taken to receiving a speech doc before the speech as a crutch and flowing and line by line debate have suffered as a result. I'm not happy with the blatant prep time theft that pervades the activity, but I recognize that any gesture that I make will be futile. I will take action in particularly egregious cases by deducting from prep time (or speech time, if no prep remains).

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I judge far more policy than LD, but I'm not a stranger to judging or coaching LD. I have no predispositions toward any particular style, so largely you should feel free to do what you're most comfortable with. I will not vote for a policy argument just because I'm predominantly a policy judge, although I will listen to them. Be sure to offer full explanations. LD time formats can be challenging, prioritize explanations over evidence. Anything above that isn't specific to policy will apply in LD as well. Your explanations are the most important part of the debate.

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD