Kiernan, (she/her)

Really quick about me:

• I've been involved in debate in one form or another a lot of my life, i believe it is such an amazing opportunity and i am so glad that you are participating in it!
• i am a sophomore at central high school (woo class of '26!), debated 2 years there and 3 before in MS.
• coach for hidden river MS starting 2023
• email is kiernanbaxterkauf@gmail.comif you need it for any reason
• ---MS---

middle school debate is for y'all to have fun and learn! if you have any questions at any point just ask them and I will always try my best to help, debate can be stressful and confusing sometimes and I want as many people possible to have a good experience- also just be nice to each other!

(yes i am aware MS kids don't read paradigms)

---HS---

t/l I'm a pretty lenient judge, i will vote on anything that is run well and makes as much sense as a novice round can. but here's a short little other bit:

-i definitely tend more towards policy and clash rounds over kritik arguments. But as of stuff for this season i understand all of it, as i am debating it, and i am well aware a good kritik can easily win a round.

-i am a tech over truth judge but if you are arguing anything that is homophobic, sexist, racist etc its going to be really hard to get good speaks that round, but i will try my best to hear you out and leave my opinions aside.

-in your rebuttals, please try and organize your points, the cleaner your line by line is, the easier it is for me to vote for you. if i cannot flow your points against what your opponents are actually saying is gonna make it a lot harder.

-all of my middle school stuff applies here too but i hope you all know that already. by the end of the debate you should be telling me the overall reasons i should vote for you, think big picture, tell me a story.

Debate Biography

I debated at Lakeville HS (MN) in LD shortly after the turn of the millennium. In effect, I only debated on the national LD circuit for one year. I was a freelance LD coach and judge for numerous schools in the mid-to-late aughts and early 2010s as an undergraduate and graduate student. I was instructor at the National Symposium for Debate for a number of years. In various ways, I was exposed to Policy Debate and am conversant in its requirements, conventions, etc.

Notes on Approach to Judging

I'm generally open to the debate that the debaters want to have. I view debate as a fairly open-ended activity where the participants have an unusual degree of power over the rules and conventions. That said, it may be helpful to know some ground rules I'll default to and dispositions I'll divulge.

1) My understanding of Policy Debate theory and practice probably isn't terribly cutting edge. You'll have to carefully fashion a flotation device for me if you want to wade too deep into the troubled sea of debate theory. While I have no problem voting on such theory in principle, please know that I prefer debates involving a significant element of something besides a metadebate. If I vote on theory when the violation wasn't really, well, harmful, the speaker points may reflect as much.

2) Given my general approach, planless ACs are fine, provided the aff explains how their position, if defended, affirms the resolution.

3) I have an appointment in a Philosophy department, which may indicate something about my default thinking.

4) I'll only vote on something if a debater gives me something I can recognize as a reason to do so. If A makes some argument that wasn't comprehensible to me the first time A made it (or, really, isn't comprehensible after the relevant doc is shared), B drops it, and A extends it as a voter, sorry---can't take it into account.

5) I presume Aff because affirming is harder. But I'm willing to hear debates about which way presumption ought to go (however...aesthetically unappealing those almost always are).

Happy to answer questions, however much of my own ignorance they may reveal.

Background and Contact Information

I debated policy for Rosemount High School from 2016 to 2020 and have been judging since 2020. I completed my undergraduate studies in economics and political science at Columbia University. I have less experience debating and judging Lincoln–Douglas (see Lincoln–Douglas section at the bottom).

Please include huangdebate@gmail.com on the email chain.

For any questions, speech document requests, or other communications, please email huang.charles.j@gmail.com. I am also happy to answer your questions in the room. This is your chance to clarify my views on things not mentioned here that may affect the round, so please ask if there's any uncertainty.

Debate should be an inclusive, accessible, meaningful, educational, and enjoyable activity for all. I encourage you to do your part to make that possible. If there's anything I can do to help make that happen, either before or during the round, please let me know.

Please do not make reference to any of my laptop stickers.

Judging Approach

I am a technical judge: I seek to decide the round based on the arguments presented and extended through the final rebuttals and the technical execution thereof. I try not to let personal predispositions, especially those concerning argument types, interfere with my decisions. Technical execution of argumentation matters generally matters more than truth, though I do value logical soundness and high-quality evidence.

When deciding rounds, I identify what the key questions on the macro level are and then attempt to resolve them by looking to key controversies on the micro level. I look to what's said in the final rebuttals to frame the key questions and subsequently who prevails on the key controversies. At every step, I try to exercise restraint when possible, but poor argumentation, poor execution, and/or illogical arguments make it harder for me to do so. To prevent me from having to decide a round based on my own contrived analysis, you should provide judge instruction in your last rebuttal and engage in clash with your opponents on the warrant level. I will turn to default assumptions only if there is not even a hint of in-round controversy over it. The barrier for overcoming default assumptions is claiming otherwise and beating any relevant contestation, which is a lower bar than having to convince or persuade me otherwise.

Positions and Strategies

– I am just as happy to evaluate a kritikal affirmative as a policy affirmative. I won't automatically vote on framework, don’t hold kritikal affirmatives to an abnormally high standard, and don’t think they’re inherently cheating. I enjoy judging both K v. K and K v. Framework rounds. Whether fairness is an impact, whether debate is a game, etc. comes down to who wins that part of the debate. My record in rounds with kritikal affirmatives is pretty even.

– If what I ran as a debater is important to for you to know:

– On the affirmative, I ran “big stick” and “soft left” affirmatives with plans and frequently made theory the 2AR.
– On the negative, I went for kritiks, topicality/framework, and counterplans/disadvantages each about a third of the time.

– I seem far more willing to vote on topicality, theory, procedurals, and plan flaws than most judges. I often think teams forgo an easy ballot in their favor by not extending theory into their last rebuttal.

– If the other team straight up drops any topicality or theory argument that you have previously indicated is a voting issue, simply saying "they dropped X; that's a voter," is usually sufficient to warrant a quick and easy ballot in your favor.
– If the other team has woefully undercovered or misanswered a topicality or theory argument, you probably don't need to spend much time here either and expect to win. Even though it's often advisable to spend either zero or five minutes of your final rebuttal on topicality or theory, if you are contemplating going for such arguments in your last rebuttal but worried I won’t buy your topicality or theory, consider spending enough time on it to potentially win if I agree with your assessment that it's been undercovered or misanswered (probably about 30–60 seconds) while still leaving time to cover substantive positions.
– How well you justify your interpretation—not what I agree with or think is sensible—matters: I am just as happy to vote for zero conditional advocacies as I am to vote for 10 conditional advocacies.
– It’s pretty hard for me to flow when you speed through your blocks. This is true for both blippy points and super long paragraphs. It’s also hard to evaluate a bunch of blippy standards from both sides without comparative analysis. You will benefit from reading blocks slower, not just rereading your standards as extensions, doing line by line, analyzing the specific round, and impacting out your points.
– Some default assumptions I have: (1) jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote on topicality; (2) topicality debates can be about which team defends a more “true” interpretation of the resolution and need not center around which interpretation makes for a “better” topic; (3) reasonability is about the reasonability of an interpretation, not the reasonability of the plan/purported abuse; (4) I focus on what interpretations justify over any claims of in-round abuse; (5) I will default to judge-kick losing counterplans; (6) almost all theory violations can be reasons to reject the team

– I appreciate a risky, unconventional, or tricky strategy. I think such an approach is often your best bet when you’re quite behind on the flow entering your last rebuttal.

– If you can effectively use a bit of math to support your arguments, that’s great. Don’t worry at all if math isn’t up your alley though of course.

– Positions and actions that disrupt the very fabric of argumentative and personal decency clearly cannot be accepted. This includes variants of "trigger warnings bad." Expect to lose if you say insensitive things or engage in insensitive conduct that make others in the room feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

Substantive Things You Should Do

– Providing judge instruction on how to decide the round is perhaps the easiest way to increase your chances of winning in front of me. This is usually most effective in an overview in your final rebuttal.

– Comparatively analyzing warrants is the best way to increase your chances of winning, though it’s harder. In reasonably close debates, my RFDs almost always eventually come down to which team better analyzed and explained their warrants, in comparison to the other team's, on a key controversy that a key question hinges on.

– When reading kritikal arguments, you should explain your thesis and theory clearly. I should have a clear understanding of your position to vote for it, and do not assume I have extensive knowledge of your theory or literature beyond exposure from debate. I also think debaters are expecting judges to fill in too many argumentative gaps. I decline to do so. You should impact out important substantive controversies on the flow such as ontology.

– Focusing on and developing a few key points on each flow by the end of the round will almost always help you. Impacting out your key points is especially important in the final rebuttals.

Stylistic In-Round Things You Should Do

– You should slow down a fair bit when when making analytics, reading or extending theory, and explaining dense kritikal theory. I may call “clear” or “slow” if I feel I am getting an inadequate flow of your speech, but you should also watch me to make sure I’m following.

– You should send pre-written analytics, especially if you intend to speed through them. I don't have a perfect flow, so if you omit pre-written analytics from the speech document hoping the other team will miss some on their flow, chances are I will also miss some on my flow.

– On each flow, try to do line by line or organize your points (e.g. framework debate, link debate, impact debate, perm debate), especially if the other team has poorly organized their work on that flow.

– The later we are in the debate and the deeper we are on a key controversy, the more useful it will be for you to label your line by line responses with subpoints. A list of subpoints is far more flowable than a paragraph.

– Don't ask for marked copies unless you actually think you're going to use it somehow toward your strategy or invoke it in your speeches. You’re certainly entitled to ask for marked copies regardless though. Marked copies need not omit cards not read.

– When referring to me in a speech, you can just say "you" (e.g. “you should vote negative on presumption”). If you are talking to me outside of a speech, feel free to call me Charlie or Charles. There is never a reason to call me "judge" in the second person.

– Avoid unnecessary abbreviations, especially when it forms a nonsense word (like "squo" or an attempt at pronouncing "xap" in cross-applications).

Out-of-Round Things You Should Do

– Be nice, respectful, and friendly to everyone; avoid being unnecessarily aggressive.

– Have fun, perhaps even be funny or throw in a joke or two.

– Start on time and minimize non-prep, non-speech time.

– Please do not label off-case in the document without a name (e.g. "1-OFF, 2-OFF, ..." or "OFF, OFF, ..." or "1, 2, ..." or "DA, CP, K, T")—doing so will result in lowered speaker points. Instead, you should give and use names for your positions (e.g. "Elections DA, States CP, Neoliberalism K, T-fiscal redistribution"). Expect bonus speaker points for exceptionally well-named off-case positions.

– Tag-team cross-examination is fine unless you physically tag your partner.

– Please time yourselves. I don’t flow anything said after time expires. I will not keep time unless required to by tournament rules.

Rare Things That Impress Me When Done Well

– Giving your final rebuttals off your flow, without reading off your laptop

– Ending a final rebuttal super early when you have enough to win

– Demonstrating strong familiarity with your and your opponents' evidence

– Explaining complex kritikal theory or counterplan mechanisms well such that a lay person could understand

– On theory and topicality: clashing on the warrants, contextualizing arguments to the round, improvising your arguments, and not relying on blocks

– Using common sense to help beat blatantly untrue arguments

– On the fiscal redistribution topic, demonstrating a strong grasp of economic concepts

Evidence and Extensions

– My decisions tend to focus on what is said in the final rebuttals, which means evidence quality usually doesn’t factor in too much. That said, I value evidence quality. If you want evidence quality to be an issue, make it an issue, and I’ll evaluate it if needed.

– Evidence quality first and foremost is a matter of whether the evidence supports the claim you’re making. Far too much evidence fails on this front. Evidence often does not come close to supporting what debaters try to use their evidence for in the context of a round, but often the other team fails to use that to their advantage. I think indicting evidence simply based on the fact that it doesn’t say what debaters want it to say is a vastly underutilized tool.

– Reading multiple cards that say the same thing is almost always an inefficient use of your time. Extending evidence and comparing warrants is more beneficial. I only flow tags when you read evidence, which means the warrants don’t get on my flow unless/until you put it on my flow in later speeches.

– I almost never read evidence after the round unless there is controversy in the final rebuttals over what a piece of evidence says or does not say. If you want me to read evidence, instruct me to in your final rebuttal and impact out the evidence.

– I think good analytics can overcome subpar evidence and logical unsoundness. Having not actively coached or debated for a few years, I think common sense and basic knowledge (e.g. about government, economics, world affairs) is often an underutilized tool to beat absurd positions concocted by low-quality evidence.

– Extensions of evidence generally should include (1) the claim and/or the author, and (2) the warrants. If there's contestation on a point, evidence comparison, especially on the warrant level, will be important. The less work the other team does to answer something, the less work you need to do extending it; for example, if the other team doesn’t answer a flow, you don’t need to extend every card. Overviews can be useful, but you should probably still extend key parts (especially on kritiks). I am not inclined to give much weight to tagline and shadow extensions.

– Re-highlightings of evidence should be read in a speech—they can't just be "inserted." You don’t have to read or describe in detail a graph, data table, or image you’re inserting, but I think it’s usually helpful to mention what the takeaway should be.

Watching Me

I may call “clear” or “slow” if it’s egregiously hard to flow your speech, but you should also watch me to make sure I’m following what you’re saying and flowing.

Aside from that, it may be beneficial to note my physical expressions, but you probably should not let them dictate your strategy. Here are generally what my physical expressions indicate, but I can’t promise one of these might not signify something else:

– If you see that I am not flowing, that may mean you're being redundant and/or not adding anything new onto my flow.

– If you see my hands out, palms up, giving a confused, shrugging gesture, that may mean I'm struggling to flow your speech.

– If you see me flowing from the speech document, that may mean you should read tags and/or analytics slower.

– If you see me nodding my head, it usually means I understand the point you're making, think you're making a responsive point, think you’re making a true argument, or agree with your commentary (e.g. they dropped a particular card). It doesn’t necessarily mean you should go for that argument or focus the round on it.

– If you see me shaking my head, it usually means I think your point is illogical, irrelevant, or otherwise non-responsive, that I disagree with your commentary, or that I think the argument you're making is weak (but again, I'll focus my evaluation on what's said in the debate, not how truthful I think your arguments are). If this is happening while I’m not flowing, it likely means I’m not following your speech.

– If you see me squinting, perhaps with a tilt or angling of the head, it probably means I'm confused by what you're saying or why you're saying it.

– If you see me laughing (and you didn't make a joke), I'm probably laughing at an absurdity in the other team's argument that you're pointing out.

Important Point

Especially if you are sick with COVID-19 symptoms or have recent known or suspected exposure to SARS-CoV-2, please wear a mask.

Please do not make reference to any of my laptop stickers.

Lincoln–Douglas

As mentioned, I have some experience debating and judging Lincoln–Douglas. Ultimately, I want you to feel comfortable debating the way you are used to and the way you want to. I will do my best to fairly adjudicate the round that is debated in front of me, so I hope you do not feel a need to over-adapt to my policy background. I think I'll be able to follow along just fine.

My overarching judging philosophy for Lincoln–Douglas is similar to that for policy: evaluate the claims presented to me based on the quality of argumentation and technical execution, seeking to limit how any potential personal predispositions on what the debate should look like or what arguments align with my personal views affect the round. The "key questions on the macro level" will probably relate to theory or framework in most rounds. Unless instructed otherwise (and with compelling reason), I will considering pre-fiat/procedural arguments (theory, topicality) before post-fiat/substantive arguments. As for framework, I don't think you need to dwell on it too much if that of both sides is similar. I think "even if" statements are particularly useful in the context of explaining why you win the round even if you lose the framework. Impact calculus is helpful to avoid an RFD that surprisingly concludes one debater wins under the other debater's framework.

A lot of what I have above for policy applies to Lincoln–Douglas too, especially the importance of explanation and comparative analysis of warrants; dropped arguments are true; I am more willing than most to vote on dropped voting issues; I focus heavily on the final rebuttals (crystallization is good), especially judge instruction (i.e. voters/voting issues); how well you argue your theory interpretation matters more than how much I agree with your theory interpretation; and everything in the "How to Win the Round" section.

That said, I realize Lincoln–Douglas is different from policy. I will try to be sensitive to the norms of Lincoln–Douglas debate, but I am likely more open than most judges to features of "circuit debate" such as kritiks, disadvantages, and counterplans. I do not have the expectation that affirmatives will have plans but am certainly open to plan-based affirmatives. I suspect I may be more amenable to "tricks" since I do not yet have a good sense of what a trick is and may see what you know to be a trick as a clever argument. If an argument gets on my flow, it should get on your flow; if it's on your flow, you should answer it.

After reading the paradigms of many other LD judges, here are some other things I didn't think I needed to include but might be useful for you to know:

– You should provide orders before your speeches and signpost throughout your speeches.

– I focus on the flow and less so on delivery. That said, your speaking needs to be clear and audible. Persuasive delivery can marginally benefit your speaker points.

– Speed is certainly fine, but attempting to rely on a drastic disparity among your and the other debater's speed is frowned upon and unlikely to win you the round. I am just as happy to judge a round with both debaters spreading as one with both debaters speaking at a conversational speed.

– I do not care on which side you sit or whether you sit or stand.

– Just take however much prep time you need and report how much time is remaining after you're done. Unless you don't have a timing device, don't expect me to tell you when you've used a certain amount of time for prep.

– You are welcome to ask questions to the other debater during your prep time. You can take prep time to let the other debater finish responding to a question. You can also take prep time to finish responding to a question asked to you. Cross-examination cannot be substituted for additional prep time.

– I am less familiar with the norms around disclosure in Lincoln–Douglas, so I may be more of a wild card on disclosure theory debates. For either side in a disclosure theory debate, you're going to have to be super explicit about vague concepts like pre-tournament preparation or research burdens and contextualize it to how you practically prepare for tournaments and rounds. Otherwise, my RFD is probably going to sound more arbitrary and contrived than you would like it to be.

– I am thus far unconvinced of the usefulness of underviews, but I will certainly still flow and evaluate underviews like anything else in a speech.

– For theory or topicality, I understand a complete argument to include an interpretation, a violation, standards, and independent voting issue claim (or "reason to reject the argument" point). As generous as I am with theory, I will be far less inclined to vote on what I see as an incomplete theory argument.

– I understand reasonability to be about whether an interpretation is reasonable, not whether the purported violation is reasonable. Feel free to define your reasonability arguments like the latter.

– Here are some terms I found in other judges' paradigms specific to Lincoln–Douglas that I do not know the contextual meaning of well (even after googling them): tricks, LARP, phil, normsetting/norming, permissibility, spike, high theory, frivolous theory (what's the bright line?). If you use terms like these in a speech, please clarify what you understand them to mean. I don't think this means I can't competently judge a round involving any of these, just that I don't know the meaning of the terms themselves.

– Please do not attempt to shake my hand.

– As long as doing so will not delay the tournament, I will disclose my decision, explain my RFD, and answer any questions you may have for me. I will not disclose speaker points before the tournament releases final results.

– If you have additional questions on how I approach judging Lincoln–Douglas (and how it may differ from how I approach judging policy), I am more than happy to answer them before your round.

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.

Experience:

I debated with Edina High School from 2014-2018 in the Public Forum format. During this time, I participated in a split of local tournaments and "circuit" tournaments. I did both "first" and "second" speaker roles.

Preferences:

· Debate in front of me as if I didn't have any experience with the topic; please don't use jargon that is topic-specific, because I will probably get lost.

· I have a basic understanding of debate jargon (extend, turn, counterplan, drop, etc.), but you risk losing me if that comprises the majority of your speaking.

· If you wouldn't feel comfortable (read: successful) in reading your args in front of someone's parents, please don't read them in front of me.

· I don't have experience with extreme speed, so if I can't understand the argument orally, I will likely not respect the argument as much.

· I will presume Aff in the event the Neg fails to win offense.

· To vote on your argument, please explain why I should do so. Just winning the argument and not explaining its relevance makes my decision harder, and may make you unhappy.

· If somehow I figure out that your author concludes differently than you portray them, you will lose the argument.

· Each team should track their and their opponents' prep time (I won't).

· There is a strong chance I won't understand your Kritik.

· I am not captivated by performances, so you will probably lose if you attempt to run one in front of me.

· I apologize in advance if I have "judge screwed" you.

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.

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

hi! my name is reilly (she/her), and I am a former policy debater at farmington high school. now, i am a current student at the university of minnesota studying on the pre-health track.

for the 23-24 topic: i am not a coach nor am i familiar with all of the literature for this year. my only knowledge is from cutting cards occasionally and judging a few rounds at camp over the summer. acronyms or topic-specific slang is going to require more clarification for me.

yes--email chain: tooheydebate@gmail.com

topics debated: arm sales (19-20), cjr (20-21), water (21-22), NATO(22-23),

top notes-

1. please respect your partner, opponents, judge, coaches, and anyone who helped make this round and tournament possible

2. racism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism, etc. are non-starters for me. intentional use of harmful language or actions guarantees you an L and tanked speaks.

3. losing a round doesn't mean you are a bad debater and winning a round doesn't mean you are superior. confidence is good but being cocky is something i can see straight through.
4. most importantly, have fun and be kind to yourself :)

for online debate-- tech issues are inevitable, so we will tackle those issues together. speaking a little louder would probably be best. moreover, being a speed demon may not benefit you if i cannot understand what you are saying--i'll be judging novices most of the year, so this shouldn't be an issue.

--my personal experience in debate has shaped how i view the activity today. i believe debate is an educational activity, but i also want our community to foster a safe, welcoming, and fun environment. this is a competition, but i don't want you to sacrifice self-decency and become robotic.

i view all ballots through a technical lens; what is written on my flows in ink is what i go off of. offense > defense. i prefer rounds with clash and ones that go into the actual evidence rather than just debating off of tags. i think judge adaptation is important, but i want you to run what you know best. the best way to guarantee a ballot from me is to be concise, clear, and explanatory. for example, if i say that i like kritiks and you, as a debater, don't like kritiks, do not run one in front of me. if you give me reasoning and explanation, i will most likely give you a ballot

Hi, I'm Max [any/all]. Add me to the email chain:

stpaulcentralcxdebate[AT]gmail[DOT]com

CHS 25

Coach @ Capitol Hill MS 23 -

ABOUT ME

I'm a third year policy debater [also did LD twice lol], team captain @ St Paul Central, and I currently coach @ Capitol Hill MS. I haven't really earned a right to true argumentative preferences. Above all else, please explain your arguments and probably avoid the "Hegel K" or assume I have a preexisting understanding of it. It’s “Max” and not “judge” please please please do not call me judge.

I'm a competent flow, and if i'm judging you I'm certain i can flow you, as long as you are clear. I will not hesitate to clear you or say louder in the round. I'll give ya three warnings until I actually get annoyed. Please time yourself, I will most likely forget if its a round in JV or Varsity.

Novice/Middle Schoolers:

--Top Level: Have fun, don’t do anything offensive, and learn! I’ll answer any questions before or after the round, and if its like “what speech comes next” or something like that, I’ll answer it then. The thing I want to emphasize the most is HAVE FUN!!! This shouldn't be too stressful or competitive and the focus should be building community and learning.

--Try to attempt line by line and not just read random things---in the rebuttals if you say something similar to “answering their argument about [x]”, I’ll be super excited!!!

--The rest of this paradigm is unnecessary for y'all

JV/Varsity

TLDR:

--Offense > Defense, Tech > Truth, always. The fundamental core of my paradigm will always be that I adhere to technical debating before putting my own thoughts about arguments in, and will try to remain as impartial as always---every predisposing I have will always be overwhelmed by debating in round. Dropped arguments=true, so can vote on presumption, but in rare scenarios. To me an argument is a claim + impact, i.e. saying the sky is red doesn’t matter if dropped until the 2NC explains why it matters, and then the 1AR gets new answers. The less of a warrant the argument originally had means the less of a warrant required to answer it.

--Speed is not an issue. Just be clear :) If I can flow college out rounds, its a you problem not a me problem when I can't flow you.

--Non policy FW's r fine. I will choose an interp that was given to me in the round, not an arbritrary middle ground or call FW a "wash", because I wouldnt be able to evaluate the rest of the debate then. Middle grounds are usually more persuasive, so you're free to advocate for them.

--No inserting rehighlightings. You have to read it.

Tech>Truth

I will only evaluate arguments made on the flow, not arguments you didn’t make---there are 2 exceptions to this that are exceedingly rare and will probably never matter

1] You actively harmed someone else in the round---being racist, sexist, etc or touched someone without consent---auto L. I'm including suggesting "death is good". [please note that this is distinct from questions of if death based impacts are good things to talk about, but if you need that clarified probably don't go for that argument.]

2] The issue happened outside of the round---I am uncomfortable evaluating high schoolers interpersonal drama, and would rather talk to tab before the round if it’s serious---i will do my best to conflict those that are harmful before tournaments though.

General Preferences

Clarity+Speed>Clarity>>>>>Speed

You should do line by line, answering your opponents arguments, with short [can't emphasize the short part enough] overviews in certain contexts [complex counterplans, anywhere where you're doing global impact calc, 2r's, kritiks].

The thing that will get you most ahead with me is things like judge instruction, impact comparison, having better evidence and doing active evidence comparison, referencing authors, things like "even if" statements.

I'm 17 years old. I don't have the experience or qualifications to have strong enough argumentative opinions to write them down here. As long as it isn't offensive, I'll vote on it. Debate how you want to, and I'll vote for you! The above stuff is just what I think is persuasive in an attempt to clue you in on who I am, and what I know will be helpful, not a ruleset you must follow.

Here are a list of people that have influenced how i think about debate as both a game and activity; Cayden Mayer, Marshall Steele, Kiernan Baxter-Kauf, Katie Baxter-Kauf, Maren Lien, Eleanor Johnson, DKP, Nick Loew, Azja Butler, Teddy Munson, Jake Swede, OTT, IGM, Tom Mickelson, and most of the MN/MNUDL debate community.

And finally, some quotes because people do that for some reason in paradigms

link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way - DKP

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

I will tank my school career for a file standard - Marshall Steele

Hello! My name is Timur Usenov and I am a debater for the UMN-TC team. I have done public forum for 4 years in high school, so I am definitely pretty experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to the basics of debate. Here are some things that I personally value and expect:

• Please accurately signpost and reference your evidence during speeches, and when you reference them later on, please do not simply tag the card like "Tannenwald 20" and expect me to remember all the points from that card. Give a brief warrant/reminder as to the main, most important contents of that card. This greatly (overall, not just for me) improves your argument and prevents me from getting lost.
• Remember to weigh, compare evidence, and analyze links/impacts. Sometimes debates just get lost and muddy with information and sometimes you just need to remember you are trying to communicate to me why you are winning. Actively strive to show me why your evidence is better, why your impacts flow, why your links still stand, and why your opponents don't. This helps me from having to create an argument/interpret what you are saying when that is your job.
• Keep track of your own time, sometimes I struggle to do so somehow, so it's always best for you to do that.
• Remain civil, but I appreciate a clash. As a debater, I was often criticized for being too aggressive or assertive, and while I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing, please remember that there are, of course, lines and boundaries that can easily be crossed into rude territory. It's one thing to be assertive, it's another to be rude. Go crazy but not too crazy to the point you make your opponents, if not me, want to leave.
• Also just a very very very personal take of mine, and hopefully you could do this in round from reading my paradigm, but please address your opponents as your opponents and not with their names, pronouns, or anything. I just cringe immensely if I hear a team address their opponents as anything but "Aff/Neg world, Affirmation/Negation, or simply Opponents." Please also use they. I just grew up doing this and I really kind of die inside hearing anything else. Obviously, I will not doc any points for this happening--I will just be distraught.
• I really value being able to understand arguments, so please do not go lightning fast (unless it's policy then I guess I will succumb to it) if you can help it.
• Finally, I really value logic and analytical argumentation. I think that is a very great way to debate and I highly encourage thinking outside of cards and evidence sometimes.

Ok, thank you! Have fun.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

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

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

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

Clarity comes before speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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