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

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

"Debate Coach" at Hopkins High School (2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi I'm Rachel (she/her or they/them)

I've been debating in VLD for Edina and am excited to judge! If you have questions before or after the round, contact me at rachelb24170@isd273.org

I'm not super picky. I'll listen to (basically) anything but I do have a few preferences:

Speaking-wise

I'm fine with spreading--make sure you are still being clear and articulating what you are saying (especially tags). If I cannot understand what you are saying, I won't vote on those arguments. If you send me a doc, don't assume I'm flowing off of it (I'm not).

Explain your warrants. Don't just say "extend ___" or "cross-apply ___" in rebuttals without explaining why those arguments matter.

The order (off-time-roadmap) for rebuttals is helpful--be as organized as you can on the flow

I love good CX--I'm not saying you'll win on it but it's fun to watch and shows me you have strategy

Argument-wise

I like framework debate. ALWAYS link back to framing. Util v. Util is cool too but WEIGH!!! I will vote on high-magnitude or high-probability impacts if you explain whyone matters more than the other.

If you're running counterplans you neeeeed to articulate your net benefit (why the counterplan is uniquely better than the aff)

Don't run friv theory...

Disclosure:

I'll give general feedback to both debaters at the end of the round and more specific feedback in the ballot. If both debaters are comfortable and agree, I'll disclose and answer more specific questions.

Speaker Points:

I start at 28 and go from there. I'll increase your speaks if I think you do a consistently good job of giving clear, well-articulated speeches, weighing + clashing, and thoroughly explaining warrants. +0.5 boost if you make me giggle.

I'll lower speaks if I cannot understand what you are saying (i.e mumbling, disorganized on the flow) or you're aggressive, hostile, rude, etc. It's unnecessary

I'm dropping you if you use any offensive/discriminatory language that is sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist etc. ESPECIALLY toward your opponent. Be nice

Have fun!

Hello!

I need passion. I need convection in your voice, for good speaker points. I NEED eye contact with me, I would like to be engaged.

Announce when you're stating a block card, "I have a block card."

Please identify if your opponent drops anything. If you want credit for ANYTHING you say, say it. (This is my first time judging)

Dont make claims without warrants. Please make the framework clear when debating about it.

Time yourself. Dont spread, if you talk too fast instead of being clear, I won't consider that information.

Please be kind, good luck.

Janeen Carroll

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Hello lovely debaters! I am a varsity LD debater in my sixth year of debate at St. Croix Preparatory Academy (I started in 7th grade). I have a little bit of experience in policy debate, but I have been primarily doing LD for the past six years. Here are some of my preferences:

General:

1. If there is an email chain, please add me to it. My email is alexandrianadavis@stcroixprep.org.

2. Passion > speed

3. If you plan on talking fast, please slow down for tags and author names. I flow based on what I hear, so just because I am on the email chain does not mean I am going to be flowing everything you say at hyper speed :)

4. PLEASE BE KIND !!

Argumentation:

1. Please please please please link back to the framework! I am more of a traditional LD debater, and telling me how you are winning under the framework helps me know how to vote in the round.

2. I want to see clash between the arguments.

3. Giving me voting issues and doing some sort of weighing between the arguments helps me a lot as a judge and I will greatly appreciate it.

4. Please signpost!!

5. I love a good CX

6. If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. comments or arguments in front of me, I will automatically vote you down and report you to tab. You are responsible for your words and actions and I will be sure to hold you accountable for anything harmful you do or say.

Speaker Points:

• I average 28 on a 30-point scale.

• If you run something creative on the topic that I haven’t heard before, it can boost your speaks :)

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask!

Have fun debating!

hi!! i'm lucy, i'm a senior + captain at robbinsdale armstrong :)

how i'll judge the round: i'll evaluate the framework debate first, then i'll see what offense actually weighs under the framework. i'll see what evidence has been extended or turned and hopefully use the weighing you gave me in your speech to decide which contentions will give you the win!

general:

i value high-probability impacts over high-magnitude impacts. i will be much more likely to vote off solvency for a small harm, than the small chance of extinction.

don't extend through ink please!!

i might not catch author names so when referencing evidence please tell me what it actually says :) on that note, i want to hear actual credibility statements (full name and qualifications) so i know why i should care about what this person has to say. i don't need an off the time road map or for you to count down from 3 before you start.

i want to hear actual clash!! if you have evidence that contradicts your opponents tell me why your evidence is better/more true. why do i prefer this argument?

you wanna weigh sooooo bad (please. please.)

framework:

i love love love framework debate, its my favorite part of ld!! every speech should reference the framework, even if it’s been conceded; tell me why you specially win under the framework(s). run whatever, if it's wacky please explain it to me but i'll use any philosophy to weigh the round! i can't say i'm a fan of util but i'll definitely vote off it if it's clearly winning the framework debate. however, i dislike the current trend of util's focused solely on preventing extinction (ie pummer or bostrom), i think it's kind of a cop-out so if you're running it defend it well, if your opponent is running it it won't take much to dissuade me from using it but your arguments still need to be warranted. (as a note you have to concede to the entirety of a framework. so if you're both running util but only one side has an extinction first justification you have to tell me why you prefer your version of util.)

argumentation:

i'm not particularly swayed by econ arguments unless you have clear impacts to real people.

i don't think you need a card for every argument, especially if its common sense. obviously, if you're referencing a statistic or something more niche you should provide evidence. (if i don't believe you i'll probably google it during prep time tbh)

econ collapse leads to nuke war: do i like this argument? no. do i think its true? no. will i be a little disappointed if i hear it? yes. will i vote on it if its dropped/barely responded to? yes. if this is what you're running, you need to have a very clear link and a brightline; if you can't prove to me why this specific event will trigger your impacts i don't care. the reverse is true if your opponent is running it; it frankly won't take much for me to disregard this argument because i really don't like it but you have to respond to it!!!

cross-examination:

a good cx is the best part of debate!! after you've asked any clarification questions, i want to see that you have a strategy for cx. you should be trying to get something out of your opponent!

progressive debate notes:

i'm a traditional debater at a traditional school with limited knowledge of progressive argumentation.

debate is a communication activity, i will not flow off a speech doc. i can follow a fast speaking pace but do not spread, whatever i don't catch is your problem, not mine.

i will vote on a counter plan but you have to prove that it is mutually exclusive. if your opponent perms it (successfully) i'm not considering it for the round. i err on the side of accessibility.

all that being said, be nice or i will find any reason not to vote for you and drop your speaks. debate should not perpetuate rudeness or misogyny and i will not reward you for doing so. i personally don't think there's a reason to use gendered pronouns in round unless your opponent specifically requests you do so. refer to your opponent as 'the aff/neg' 'my opponent' 'they said' etc.

speaks:

things that will increase your speaks: weighing, turns, passion, clear delivery, reasonable speed, clear strategy (especially during cx), respect towards your opponent, and good argumentation. (if you're feeling silly add in a mitski lyric and i'll boost you .5)

TLDR: probability >> magnitude (with reason), cx slays, be respectful, run whatever you want, have a framework debate, and have fun!!

Hi there! I’m Ashton, I’ve been in LD for three years.

I want the cases shared with me. In addition, the speed of the speeches should be at a comprehendible speed.

If you’re doing anything non traditional I’m down with it as long as it makes sense.

I am not a debater so please talk slow and have a traditional round. Thank you.

See Henry Miller’s paradigm

I am a parent judge who started traditional LD judging in 2022. I regard debate as a means of education.

Debate etiquette and good manners come first before winning rounds: dress properly, stand up while speak, and respect your opponents and judge(s).

As a debater, you should have done decent research using reputable sources to construct and defend your own case. Please do not count on spreading to win your round. It is better to speak clearly and concisely with solid evidence. Let us hear quality contention and clash.

Have a growth mindset on your learning journey. Strive to be a culturally competent debater: expand your understanding of different cultural practices and worldviews.

Be genuine and authentic, and enjoy debate!

I'm Julia, the debate captain for the Eagan LD team! I'll be judging novices so my paradigm is quite simple (if you're not a novice I'll let you know what's changed based on the event). If you're looking at my paradigm, good practice! It's good to know what you can or cannot do within a certain round. So if you tell me "For the extra speaker point, my favorite book is *insert your fav book here*" at the beginning or end of your round I'll give you an extra speaker point (don't be sassy or I'll take one off instead). Also check out Sam Anderson's Paradigm - things that he votes for is probably similar to me since he taught me everything I know lol.

Speaking: I expect y'all to speak clearly and loud enough for me and your opponent to hear, if you don't speak clearly I will not be able to flow it and the argument will not be carried over and used to help me determine who wins or loses within the round. Also? Be nice to your opponents please. This is a fun activity, not a battle ground.

Speaker Points: I start somewhere around 27.5 points and move up and down based on how you did. If you get a thirty that does not mean that you did perfect however based on the level you're expected to be at, you exceeded my expectations (good job). If you get a twenty-five then that means you were probably abusive with your speech or I could not understand you (not good job). I will also lower your speaker points if you are mean, and include it in my notes.

Phil/Framework: If you have a weird framework you NEED to be able to explain it to me and your opponent so that I can weigh it and use it to define the debate. If you don't I will default to your opponent's framework.

Extending: I cannot stress this enough, extend your arguments (novices - as time goes on you should be better at doing this but at the beginning of the season I will let some things pass. JV - extend, as y'all should know how), remember to use the acronym! Within this make sure to not only say the author name but also the tag, helps to clarify where we are in the debate for me.

Have fun debating!

My paradigm got deleted for some reason but this is just a bulleted list

Background:

Senior at Wayzata High School. I'm a varsity LD debater

Argument:

Don't drop arguments

Extend your debate across speeches

Don't ignore framework

Argue against a persons case not their character. If you attack someone's identity as a person you'll lose the argument. Pretty much just don't be racist, homophobic, etc

Argue the topic; don't use things like disclosure theory, author quals, etc. (in most cases) I'll vote against something like disclosure theory. K's are fine but argue the topic

Voters would be helpful if you have time but I won't change your speaks or vote for one side because you included voters (or didn't include voters)

Speaking

Don't spread. Talking fast is fine but I should be able to understand you. If I have to look at your case to understand what you're saying I'll take off speaks. As long as I can understand the jist of your argument from just you talking you'll be fine

Spreading through definitions is good though

Using less prep time won't improve your speaks; I want to see good debates so use as much prep as you need

Use cross x however you feel is the most beneficial, but I'll probably give more speaks if you attack your opponent in cross x

If you say the word goofy I may add a speaker point

Cross X:

Stated before but use cross x however you feel is the most beneficial but I'll probably give more speaks if you attack your opponent in cross x

If you're opponent is taking a long time to answer or you feel like you've got a sufficient answer it's completely fine to (respectfully) cut them

Timing:

I'll keep track of timing but I ask that you do too

10 seconds after time runs out on my timer I'll cut you off

I won't give warnings for how much time you have left unless you ask me to

Other:

Don't hesitate to ask me questions at any point (about my paradigm, your timing, etc not what you're opponents first contention was or something like that)

I have debated LD debate for 4 years at Moorhead and I am good with a lot of stuff when it comes to round.

Speed is okay if you are clear, if you aren't clear then you need to be talking slower. I want to hear your arguments rather than there being a lot of them.

However, when it comes to extinction arguments, they need to be sound and appropriate for the resolution. Make sure you explain them well or I will not buy them.

If you plan to run theory you need to make it accessible, if it blocks your competitor completely out of the round I will not vote for you. It is best not to run it because we are here to debate the topic and not something completely unrelated.

Have fun, be nice, and respect one another!

Greetings I'm Rebekah Levreau,

A former nationally ranked LD Debater, coached LD debate and is my first season judging LD Debate.

My approach to judging comes from the experience of having stood where you are today and is rooted in wanting to recognize your strength and a provide feedback to improve your skill and talent.

I believe that debate can create a positive impact to your future. Beyond becoming effective at building a position for a resolution, debate will instill in you the ability to process information quickly, build methodologies for interpreting perspective, empower influence along with many other talents that will serve you later in life.

Guiding Principles:

Respect: Be respectful of each other before, during, and after the debate. Talking over or beneath your opponent isn't respectful. Being rude, short, loud, condescending or combative will not win you points.

Mindfulness Be thoughtful about your use of time, the advantages that exist in both position of affirmative and the negative and it's your role to use these to create better support of the assigned position for the round while challenging the oppositions integrity.

Delivery: Please remember this is LD Debate and not Policy. Speed is not your friend if the constructive position is not understood by your opponent and the judge. Speak clearly and watch the pace. If you have to rush chances are you need to rework the constructive and make contentions and subpoints more succinct (aka. Say Less)

Judging Insights:

A clearly stated constructive built on a solid foundation of quality contention (support cards), that fortify the criterion (framework) which is the cornerstone of the value.

Quality vs Quantity - is essential when it comes to contentions and cards. More cards doesn't equal a stronger case. Quality contentions and subpoints is what will continue to support your position and your ability to reinforce their integrity, challenge the oppositions contention or weaken the case of the opposition is what counts. Be careful to observe the guidelines of when cards can be introduced in rebuttal.

Scoring: I work to judge each component of the debate on its own merit and then factor the overall debate components to come the decision and scores.

Feedback: I always try and publish feedback shared with both teams on the decision but then also provide feedback to each of the debaters individually. Feedback is always intended to help you improve your debate skills and case quality.

hi! I'm sophia (she/her)

Pls add me to the email chain: sophialin1505@gmail.com

I'm a 4th-year varsity debater and pretty much solely do trad debate

Things to note:

• Please have genuine clash and actually interact with your opponent's case.
• I love a framework debate, so link back to your framework and your opponents if possible.
• Signpost! If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow your responses
• Clarity>>Speed. I'm fine with speed, but if you don't enunciate, I will stop flowing
• Explain! I want to know WHY you should win: give me voters, world comparison, crystallization, etc. I really don't like pre-written responses that don't actually respond to the link chain.
• weigh weigh weigh

Do not be disrespectful...I will drop you, give you the lowest speaks possible, report you to tab, and probably talk to your coach.

Don't be afraid to ask any questions before or after the round! You can always email me (sophialin1505@gmail.com) Debate is a fun, educational activity, so have fun with the round!!

email: katelyn.liu2020@gmail.com

Heyyy y’all!!

Background: I am a fourth-year LD debater at Eden Prairie High School. I use she/her pronouns. My debate experience comes from the MN local circuit, so I’m very familiar with traditional debate.

Debate is supposed to be a fun activity, but I know all too well how stressful it can be. I swear to you, I’m not a scary person. I try not to react to arguments during round, but tbh I’m a really expressive person so I’ll probs be nodding along to your cases. Doesn’t really mean anything specific, that’s just the way that I actively listen. Before round, you can 100% make conversation with me. If you don’t, I will. Awkward silence is a pet peeve of mine. If you have a favorite phrase at the moment, please tell me. I’m trying to expand my favorite phrases. I’ll raise your speaks :)) (current fav: deadasssss)

Things to note:

• PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE IN THE FLOW!! I am a strong advocate of off-time roadmaps + signposting. If you are jumping around and not specifying where you are in the flow, I will dock speaker points.
• Clarity >>> Speed. You can speak at a faster pace, but if you are not speaking clearly enough, I will yell “Clear”, and if it keeps happening I’m not flowing your words and your speaker points are getting docked.
• It is very obvious to me if someone else wrote your case. Not every school has the resources to just have other people write their cases for them. So if someone did write your case, please make it the least obvious thing in the round. Know your cards, links, and impacts. That is how everyone else does it in the circuit.
• Zero tolerance for disrespect. Doesn’t matter if it’s me or your opponent. I will give you the lowest speaks possible and you will lose the round. I have been disrespected by fellow competitors in round before and it is the most demoralizing feeling ever. Do not make that the debate experience. Debate is supposed to give people opportunity to expand their knowledge and public speaking. There is never a place for disrespect in any form within this activity. I will call you out on it and I will speak to your coaches about it.

Speaks

I’ll start at 28 speaks and that will change based on the round. 27 = could be better. 28 = good. 29 = good job. 30 = bro you’re insane what. Again, if you are disrespectful in any way, I will give you the lowest speaks possible :)

Theory

In the local circuit, I haven’t personally faced much theory arguments but generally I don’t buy it. Unless it’s extremely abusive, I probably wont buy it. By all means, run it, but you’ll have to take extra time to walk me through the points of abuse within the case.

Framework

Big part of my decision will come down to the framework debates. That debate can be a huge hit or miss. Please make sure you’re utilizing the value and criterion in the debates and linking your arguments back to your framework. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH!!! If you weigh, esp if you’re a novice, I will literally raise your speaks. Weighing and extending your arguments are sososo important and if you’re doing a good job at it during round, I will raise your speaks. The easiest way for you to win the round is if you convince me on the framework debate and show me why your case weighs better than your opponent.

• side note: Please don’t waste all of your time on fw. I will stop flowing if it continues for more than 2 minutes

MDTA JV/Novice State

If you run anything nat circuity, I will drop you (Ks, invalid theories, etc). CPs and DAs are fine.

To win, please make sure you’re speaking with clarity, weighing your arguments, and linking things together. When extending a card, please give me a tagline of what the card is about because I’m not going to catch every single card name. In regards to dropping arguments, I don’t consider that an auto-win unless you identify why that argument is so important and/or extend the argument. Use your time wisely and don't drop your evidence. HUGE PET PEEVE!!! Again, remember to have so much fun! Please don’t stress too much because there is always room to improve and you literally cannot expect yourself to be a perfect debater from the start. I absolutely am not a perfect debater even in my 4th year of debate. If you have any questions after round, about anything, feel free to email me! GOOD LUCK YALL!!!

Hello, debaters!

I am a High School Public Forum debater, now judging LD. I will not bring in any personal opinions into my judging and am pretty much a blank slate starting off the round - any claim or analysis that you have evidence for or explained logically, I will consider.

In my opinion, what makes Lincoln Douglas unique and interesting is the values aspect of it - I will use whatever value I am convinced of the most as a framework for judging the round. The best way to make me vote for you is winning the values debate, and linking your contentions’ impacts solidly to your chosen value.

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

Add me to the email chain henrymillervantage@gmail.com

I’m currently a Varsity LD debater at Minnetonka and have experience in Congress and one PF tournament. I’m definitely a trad debater, but am open to hear(and try my best understand) arguments as long as they’re actually explained well in cross or in rebuttals. Feel free to be creative as long as you’re fair and accessible.

First things first, debate should be a fun activity. If you’re being rude, overtly aggressive or intentionally inaccessible to trick your opponent I will tank speaks. If you’re a bigot (that includes racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, islamophobia, ableism, etc) I will drop you.

I don’t care if you sit or stand :)

Framework

The winning framework is the lens through which I evaluate the offense of the round. Please take time to link into, weigh, and explain your framework!!! I would also say it’s a good idea to try to link into and weigh under both frameworks even if you’re convinced you won the framework. I would like to see at least an attempt at actual framework clash and comparative analysis instead of just reading the AT FW’s in your files. I understand a fair amount of frameworks but I probably won’t understand your super dense phil especially if YOU don’t even understand it. Please be able to explain your stuff.

• MSV:

I would like to hear more nuance in weighing under MSV than just “hurting minorities is bad”. I would refrain from dressing up a framework that has similar weighing mechanisms as MSV as something else. Same goes for Util.

Case-level:

Under framework, I see which debater has the most offense on the contention-level that is linked in. Actually explain why you’re “winning” on things, and don’t just extend through ink. You’re ostensibly writing my flow, tell me what is important and why you’re winning. Please be organized and signpost well. Please don’t power tag or use bad evidence. I would love to see efficient, effective, and accurate taglines as well as linking, weighing, and impacting in case and throughout the round. Take the time to crystallize and tell me what is happening in the aff and neg world, why it's going to happen, and why I should vote off it.

Quantification is key to solidify your impacts!!! Please use brightlines!!!

Counterplans:

I’m perfectly fine with them as long you sufficiently explain why it’s competitive. Please don’t run PICS, they’re super annoying and just makes debate less enjoyable.

Speaks:

I start at 27.5 and go up based on time management, strategy, clarity, and organization. Getting a 30 requires doing all of these exceptionally well. Speaker points are much less of a reflection of how effective of a public speaker you are than it is time management and strategy, but I still need to be able to hear, understand, and be persuaded by you.

Hi, I'm Smiraa! I'm a 4th year varsity debater. Please add me to any email chain at smiraadebate@gmail.com.

LOVE a framework debate, or even if you both agree on framework, I like hearing it extended throughout your speeches in weighing, voters, world comparison, etc. For the love of the gods, weigh under your framework. I want to hear the words "magnitude," "scope," "timeframe," "probability," etc. Also, don't read a framework you don't understand, I promise you I can tell.

Speaking of weighing.... weigh.

Signpost. Please don't make me do mental gymnastics to figure out what contention/card you're on.

I want to hear both analytical warrants and evidence-based warrants. Don't simply read a card to me and call it a day -- I won't give it a ton of weight because I want to hear that YOU know what you're talking about. Properly extending and explaining the warrants (basically just knowing your own arguments) is key.

I will be timing you, but I expect the both of you to also time yourselves and each other. You have all the freedom in the world to respectfully say "That's time" if your opponent is going over. Be mindful of your time and be fair.

Tell me why you win. Do this by having actual clash, weighing WITH framework, and giving me voters. Write the ballot for me.

I can handle pretty fast speaking, but I want to hear enunciation -- if I can't audibly understand what you're saying, I'm not flowing it. Speak clearly. No actual spreading.

Be respectful throughout the debate, if you say anything completely out of pocket (racist, homophobic, etc), you're getting dropped. Just be nice.

For MDTA JV/Novice State, if you run nat circuit-y content (like Ks, obscure theories, etc), you auto-lose. CPs and DAs are all good!

Please ask me any questions you have before the round, and have fun!

(+0.5 speaks if you make a Suits reference)

I am a Varsity Debater and Senior at Apple Valley High School.

I rather like Phil arguments, and I have a good understanding of them, but be sure to extend well (all across your flow, but particularly in the framework). If its out of the standard repertoire of Phil, be sure to explain it well. This is the lens through which the whole round is viewed through, so make sure to have good clash.

In Novice LD, running anything circuit that your opponent cannot interact with, or is very clearly not familiar with I will be incredibly hesitant to vote on it (Theory, K's, etc.). If both you and your opponent are running circuit content, I'll weigh normally.

I'll keep time, and will stop flowing after the timer is complete, but please keep time yourselves.

Spreading in novice is not ideal. Speed is perfectly fine, but if its at the point where I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it.

Avg. speaks at 27.5.

Cards and Citation are important, but if something is an easily verifiable fact, or an analytic that clearly and logically addresses an argument, it is not a viable argument to simply say "this evidence is carded, they just made an analytic".

Hi. I am a parent judge. My background is in finance and global business. I look forward seeing you in action today. Make your overarching arguments very clear and concise, then support them with logic, facts and conviction.

Woomp Woomp

Please add me to any email chains. My email is: pattanashettynishu@gmail.com

I've competed in LD Debate since 2021 at Chanhassen High School.

Trad is preferred.

Please weigh your arguments, and interact them with both the rest of your case and your opponent's. They should not exist in a vacuum, and each argument is like a puzzle piece. Put that puzzle together, and you'll be set.

Spread at your own risk. Be mindful that it can reduce your speaking effectiveness and harm your signposting ability. If something is not on my flow, I will not evaluate it.

I won't vote on any tricks, so please do not read them.

I am a senior in high-school and this is my 4th year doing LD debate. I am okay with a fast speed as long as you are clear. I don’t like K’s. Counterplans are okay with me. Value debate is usually unimportant but I like a good criterion debate. Please make sure to weigh using magnitude, probability, timeframe, etc. Also make sure to weigh under your framework. Please be respectful to your opponent.

TL;DR: Read the parts of the paradigm that are relevant to you, it will help you. I’m (hopefully) a good judge, I’ll vote off the flow, but you need to weigh.

Add me to the email chain: tommyrobben28@gmail.com

I'm a varsity LD debater at Minnetonka, but I've also done policy and some other outdated formats. (Ask your varsity people, they might know me)

Accessibility and inclusivity is one of the most important aspects of debate. If you aren’t willing to accommodate your opponent, or blatantly try to confuse them, you’ll have a very, very hard time getting my vote.

I don’t care if you stand or sit. Do what is most comfortable for you.

I will boost your speaks if...

• Your case is in a funny font (show me proof before round)

• You physically spin around when you make a turn on your opp's case

• You make jazz hands when you read a terminal impact

• You make some jokes or a pun in any of your speeches. It doesn’t have to be good, just make the debate more interesting and show me you read my paradigm

This will have no effect on who wins the debate

Tech>Truth, Quality>Quantity

If you say something blatantly false, or use crappy evidence, it might subconsciously affect my decision, and it will affect speaks. If something is easily verifiable, and I subjectively consider it “common knowledge”, you don’t need a card. Be careful with that though, I want to hear evidence. Debate is supposed to be educational, please keep it that way :)

JV/Novice State:

This is a trad tournament, I’ll be very upset if you're full out spreading, or reading non trad stuff, and your opponent isn’t completely fine with it. The only reason I’d be fine seeing non-traditional stuff is if you're friends with your opponent, and you both agree that you want to try something interesting. If you both want a round with spreading, I’m okay with that, but I need to see that both sides actually want a round with spreading, not just that they’re fine with it.

Here’s how you can get my vote:

1. For LD, framework is the first thing I consider. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH, OR LINK INTO THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE, I CANNOT VOTE FOR YOU. Always a good idea to weigh under both frameworks, unless it’s been conceded.

2. Next, I’ll go contention by contention. You can’t just “win” a contention, you also have to do the work and tell me why that means you win the round.

1. In order to win a contention, you can’t just extend it through ink, you have to actually respond to your opponent, and tell me why they’re wrong.

I’m going to be very sad if I see anyone drop something massive in a round, or if you say your opponent dropped something, when they didn’t. I know when something’s been dropped, but I won’t do anything about it unless someone specifically calls it out, and tells me why I should care. (You have to weigh)

Each speech (excluding constructives), it becomes less and less likely that I vote off of new arguments, or new evidence.

Suspicious evidence:

I find it really frustrating how often I hear completely power tagged, or misleading cards. You can’t just assume a lot of death=extinction, your card has to actually say that. I don't fully understand why something becomes instantaneously more credible if you say someone’s last name, and a year, before quoting what they say. Use evidence from actual experts.

I want to hear a brightline!! What % of GDP decline causes war? What temperature increase causes extinction?

I really like seeing when someone calls their opponent out for crappy, unclear, or misrepresented evidence, especially in cross examination.

You don’t need an extinction impact to win under util, if you know that your card never specifically says “extinction”, I’ll be a lot happier if you give it a proper tagline for the round.

Frameworks:

I’ve heard every framework out there. I need to hear evidence for it though. Don’t misrepresent what your framework actually says, I’ll be sad.

For util, I don’t immediately assume that preventing extinction is the priority, you have to make valid arguments for that. Don’t read Bostrom, there are much better cards that say the same thing, that are from authors that don’t support eugenics. If your opponent reads anything from Nick Bostrom, call them out on it, and I’ll almost instantaneously rule out the evidence.

For anything deont, or uncommon, you need to actually explain your arguments, tell me what it says. Don’t use inaccessible vocabulary, your opponent should be able to engage in the framework debate.

Speaks:

I’ll try to start at around 28, and either increase/decrease as necessary. Getting a 30 is quite possible, but it requires a combination of having fun, speaking well, and debating well.

Speaks are going to be based on the manner you speak, but also a way for me to indicate if you made good strategic decisions, and had good cases. If you're just straight up mean, you’ll get low speaks. Being nice will increase speaks.

No matter what speed you speak at, you have to be able to speak clearly. Mumbling, or speaking in an unclear fashion makes it impossible for me to flow. I have heard every level of speed imaginable, I can understand it all, as long as you speak clearly.

Counterplans:

I’m fine with counterplans, but the neg has an obligation to explain to me why it’s mutually exclusive. Don’t do anything abusive, like conditional counterplans, or PICs. Delay counterplans are really annoying, but I’ll vote for it if your opponent doesn’t sufficiently respond to it.

If you and your opponent want to try something interesting

I default to JV/Novice state being a trad tournament. If you want a circuit round, you need to confirm with your opponent before the round that you both actually want a circuit round. It’s not enough for your opponent to say that they’re “ok” with you running a K or something, they have to actually want that kind of round.

If y’all come to the conclusion that you both want a circuit round, I’ll vote off of anything. I’m comfortable with Ks, theory, and any level of spreading, though I still hate tricks.

If you still can’t figure out how to debate in front of me, I agree with the paradigm’s of Brock Dodds, Sam Anderson, and Nick Smith.

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.

I competed in policy in high school and in NDT for four years in college. However, my high school years were 1981-85, and my college years were 1985-89. Since that time, I coached national level policy debate from 1992-2007, and then retired for 13 years. From 2020 through 2023 I have been coaching LD for Edina HS. I have also been a labor and employment lawyer (representing employers) since graduating from law school in 1992.

I believe debate is a verbal activity. I will flow your speeches and will yell clear if I cannot understand you. If I yell clear, slow down and ensure that I am tracking your speech. I will not flow based on your speech doc. I will consult the speech doc if there is a dispute about what evidence says.

Given my policy history, my default evaluation is policy in orientation. However, I'm more than willing to evaluate a debate based on a philosophical framework or a kritical/in-round framework. I am not a big fan of tricks debate, as I apply a Toulmin-style evaluation of arguments and expect a claim, data and warrant, and in my experience a lot of tricks debate arguments lack the data and warrant elements of a Toulmin argument. However, I do judge the debate based on the flow, and I've certainly voted on a lot of theory arguments in my time.

I think debate is a wonderful activity and I value everyone's contribution and participation. As a result I will react negatively to any conduct or argumentation that devalues or diminishes debaters. If you're rude, nasty or mean, expect me to reduce your speaker points. If your rudeness or nastiness is related to gender, race or some other protected characteristic, expert me to reduce them a lot.

I love to watch debaters having fun. It's a great activity. Try to enjoy it.

I'm a student at Apple Valley High School and I do Varsity LD.

I have a good understanding of 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 it will lead to very low speaker points. You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll start speaks at 27.5 and move up based on how the round goes, they are mainly based on how good of a debater I think you are and also if I like your speaking style. :)

I really want to hear wacky impacts, I've never heard someone impact turn extinction or climate change and I think they are fun.

I don't want to hear "speechy" speeches, if I wanted to hear something with emotional appeal or emphasizing I would watch an extemp or an oratory. Cross should be casual like you are just having a conversation with your opponent.

Outside of the framework, everything in the AC and the case part of the NC should be carded.

Hi I am Raunit(he/him); I am a senior at Rosemount High school and am in my 4th year of LD debate. Here's my email for any questions that you have or for email chains: raunits2006@gmail.com.

Here's how I will vote for the round:

1. Framework (If you have different frameworks please debate them, however, if the framework is the same don't waste too much time on it)

2. Flow (For the flow, if you have something very important that I could possibly miss, please emphasize it)

3. Weighing (Please make sure to weigh, at the very least in your final speech)

The above are not organized by priority, but are factors that will go into making the decision.

Speakers:

They will usually start between 27-28.

Don't be racist, sexist, or any other bad -ist. I won't reduce speaks for a monotone voice, but a voice with some color wouldn't hurt.

I will award bonus speaks as I see fit, so do your best.

2017 Graduate with Public Forum experience (she/her)

Current policy professional in the energy space, knowledgeable about the issue. Evidence is important to me and will be essential to a winning argument.

Please do not spread.

Theory read in round will not grant you a win; any concerns about discrimination or abuse should be addressed prior to or immediately following the round. I am committed to equitable treatment of all debaters.

Pronouns: He/They (Either Works)

Please just call me Jack or Judge

Email: jacktimm@frontier.com

About Me:

I am a senior debater on the Lakeville Debate Team. I’ve been debating for 3 years, all in LD.

Judging Preferences:

I’ll preface this by saying that I’ll do my best to be objective, but please keep in mind that there is a plethora of things to vote on in the debate round and it’s the judges job to evaluate all of them. I will do this the best I can, but it’s likely I’ll inevitably miss something. My decision is in no way an indicator of your overall skills as a debater, it is simply my best evaluation of the round.

1. Be respectful to your opponent. If you’re not I’ll probably give you low speaks and I’ll be more likely to drop you.
2. Do NOT make any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. arguments.
3. I enjoy when people road map clearly, compare evidence, and extend the warrants for their arguments.
4. I struggle with spreading, so if you do it know that I might not be able to comprehend all your arguments.

I’m cool with listening to any type of argument whether it be K’s/Theory/CP’s/Phil/etc. but I am much more acquainted with traditional LD debate. I will listen to any non-trad arguments, but just know that I might not be familiar with what you’re running and you’ll have to do a bit more work explaining your argument to win my ballot.

I’ll do my best to give relevant and helpful feedback, and if you have any questions or suggestions for me please let me know. I’m looking forward to judging and I wish you the best of luck :)

I competed in four years of Public Forum in high school and am now the head coach at Andover High School in Minnesota. We primarily focus on Congress and Public Forum in our program.

Congress:

If you contribute meaningfully to the debate (rather than reading a pre-written speech repeating arguments), that's a good way to rank highly with me. I want to see clash and rebuttals, even if those rebuttals are logic-driven and not necessarily evidence-driven. I want to see that you're following the round and thinking critically about it.

I understand wanting to stay relevant in the round, but please be mindful of the questions you ask. I am unimpressed by questions that are really a statement that you end with "wouldn't you agree?" or "what's your response to that?" Please don't use questioning periods as time to bring up other evidence or preface. And ask questions that are relevant to the speaker you're asking them of. If they didn't talk about an argument, a question about that argument doesn't make sense.

Public Forum:

Arguments that are well-warranted go further for me than an argument you try to fiat your way out of. Almost always, I think that's a cheap way of dictating the round and avoiding a question.

Don't make me do the work of making arguments for you because I won't and a half-baked argument isn't going to generate you a lot of offense on the flow.

On the topic of weighing- do it. Give me quantification, a weighing mechanism, magnitude, an impact calc, I don't care. This goes along with the whole judge intervention thing- I want you to be pretty clear what I should flow as most important in the round.

I'll take a logical rebuttal to an argument if that logic is very sound. If that logic is sound, I may not necessarily need evidence read to clunk up the argument.

I enjoy giving feedback after the round and I'll usually disclose if I've made my decision at that point. Feel free to ask me anything else you'd like to know. But don't shake my hand please I'm v not a fan.

hey y’all!

I compete in Varsity LD for Lakeville debate

I am extremely trad so try avoiding circuity args ( considering it’s locals)

If you read theory please have it be because there’s actual abuse or issues to be called out on.

Shoe theory and all are silly goofy and you would be making my day, but I’m not gonna vote for you.

Framework debate is EXTREMELY important in LD

im ok with speed but don’t spread

I’ll average 28 speaks

Just make sure to have fun, don’t be too assertive :))

Our paradigm is to engage all students in a time-tested, Classical Liberal Arts education that demands

their best in academic achievement and honorable character while challenging them to attain their highest potential through rhetoric and guided discourse.

My pronouns are she/her/hers. My background: competed in PF throughout high school, have spent the past 4 years judging both PF and LD.

Have fun! Take the round seriously, but also realize that you are not actually shaping world policy, so be chill. My main things I want to see in a round:

- be a good person in general: no -isms, don’t be rude to opponents, don’t steal prep or go way over time

- come prepared: have plenty of evidence and produce it quickly (evidence matters lots to me), know your speeches well and be ready for cross. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if they are hotly contested. Summarizing is okay, just be honest with it and have the full card ready right away.

- guide me through the round: narrow down to key voters, strategically collapse as needed, tell me where and why I should vote for you, and please for the love of god weigh. DO NOT say 'extend John Doe '15' without telling me what John Doe '15 says. I don't flow the name of the card, I flow the evidence itself.

-speaking skills: eye contact, pace of speaking (I am okay with spreading, however realize that if I cannot understand you, you will loose speaker points), enunciation, clarity, etc - especially important in constructive, since you should know the speech well enough to give it well. Also, in cross, please don't yell or talk over your opponent. Just be polite.

- I vote off the flow, essentially, so make my flow clear. That being said, a note on cross-fire - I love cross-fire, and as a result I very rarely flow crossfire. Therefore if something important comes up in cross, bring it up in a speech to be sure that it makes it on my flow.

A note on theory: I'm not a huge fan of theory. Unless there is super clear abuse, then I will likely not vote for theory. Also, I will never ever buy disclosure theory. Debate is about the resolution, stick to it.

Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make debate more accessible to you before the round-- trigger/content warnings are appreciated in making debate a more accessible space. If you have any questions before the round, ask away. Looking forward to a great round!