Email: colinabe05@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Hey, my name is Arshi, I'm a senior at Edina High School (EHS). I've done policy and only policy throughout my debate career. My email is ArshiB24338@isd273.org if you need me for anything.

Just looking to have a fun time @ debate ^^

I don't tolerate racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.

During the round, signposting and judge instructions would be much appreciated. I'll listen to most arguments, it just has to be well warranted.

Im okay if you go slower during spreading, as long as you get what you need to get during your speeches. PLEASE READ THE TAGS CLEARLY AND LOUDLY. I'm also okay with tagging during CX

Hey there! My name is Madi, my pronouns are she/her/hers

email: madisondinneen@icloud.com

I am in my 4th year of speech, debate and mock trial involvement and fall in love with the forensics world more and more each day!

As a disabled woman, I hope to make forensics a more accessible and welcoming place for LGBTQ people, POC, and disabled people. I also hope to encourage speakers to find value in their forensics experience outside of their ballots and results, and place importance in their personal growth and the amazing friendships we all make in this community.

Please give trigger warnings when necessary for any speeches or positions you may give, it’s our job as forensics people to make this more normalized.

Tag teaming- I will usually allow it but please ensure the designated speaker gets a majority of the time

My decisions are always final and never personal. I am more than happy to give advice on any topic you may be curious about after rounds are over.

I look forward to meeting you.

Tabula Rasa judge

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

She/her - respecting others pronouns is non negotiable

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

Judging -

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

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

Round procedure -

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

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

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

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

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

Presentation/speaks -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

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

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

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

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

Minimize new flows in the block.

Yay direct and explicit clash!!

Tech—O—————Truth

Aff -

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

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

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

CPs -

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

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

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

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

DAs -

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

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

Kritiks -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory and topicality -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joke args -

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

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

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

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

4 years of high school policy debate, 11 years of coaching for Eagan High School (MN).

Please add eaganpolicydebate@gmail.com to any email chains (but note point 2 below).

My weirdest views that I wish more people would exploit:

* Inherency is a stock issue that the affirmative carries the burden of proof on.

* Topicality is not about limits, fairness, or ground: it's about an interpretation of my jurisdiction as a judge to resolve the round in favor of the affirmative. Most "reasons to prefer" these days are extratextual attempts to relitigate the resolution and punish the affirmative for not adhering to your personal view of what negative ground should look like.

* Most framing pages make huge claims that never interact with the substance of the round. Most teams would be better off dispensing with a framing page and learning to compare impacts.

* Most counterplans fail to resolve the resolutional question in favor of the negative. I'm especially skeptical of topical counterplans.

* Most "kritiks" hardly interact with the plan and don't operate to refute it or the resolution.

***

All preferences expressed below are subject to the facts and circumstances of the round. If you have particular concerns not addressed below, speak to me before the round.

1. Clarity over speed. If you can imagine your theoretical maximum speed, I would like to hear you at about 70%. If you have any doubt, go slower. This is especially relevant in the age of virtual debates.

2. I evaluate debates using my flow of your speeches. Debate is a game of oral advocacy. Accordingly, I don't read evidence during or after the round because I think it increases the likelihood that I am judging my thoughts about the evidence and not the arguments presented in the round. Please use short tags, organize your speeches, label positions, and identify arguments that you are responding to by signpost (e.g., 2AC 1) or short summary (e.g., "off the no link").

3. Affirmatives should present a topical advocacy. A topical advocacy involves advocating that the U.S. federal government take an action to complete the resolutional objective. You will almost certainly lose to a minimally competent negative in front of me if your answer to topicality arguments involves claiming that you don't have to be topical. (In fact, if you claim that you are a prerequisite to affirming the resolution or that you are not topical in the 1AC, all a negative team has to do to win my ballot is to point out that you haven't affirmed.) You should instead argue why you fit under the resolution regardless of a non-traditional presentation.

4. I care most about how the affirmative's proposed action will affect people. Explain to me how your impacts affect the material conditions of people's lives and why your impacts are more important than your opponents' (e.g., via timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

5. I am usually a bad judge for critical arguments. If you are a team that is not flexible enough to read a disadvantage or case arguments, critiques usually lose in front of me because I don't understand the link (links of omission and root cause arguments don't pass muster as links) or because I don't understand why I should hold the affirmative responsible for, say, the entirety of capitalism.

6. My speaker points skew lower than most judges. If I had to guess, median points are between 27.5 and 28. I reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, cross-examinations that develop the debate, and displaying respect for your opponents.

7. Unless specified as a requirement by the tournament rules, "disclosure theory" or "new affirmatives bad" are not good arguments.

Judging Paradigm:

Reece Peters (he/him)

Email:

reecepeters1@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated at Eagan High School for four years, three of which being on the Policy Debate team. I've also debated Public Forum and Big Questions. Although not debating there, I'm a college graduate from the University of Washington with a varied range of interests including Philosophy, Mathematics, Computer Science, Linguistics, and Political Science.

I've been a debate coach at Eagan High School for the better part of the last two years and have around three years of formal policy debate judging experience across all range of skill levels.

Tag Team:

Yes, it's fine but be respectful of your partner. Speaks will suffer if you are the only one talking.

Default Philosophy:

I default to the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policy maker.

I will not make arguments for you that aren't on the flow. If you want me to think something, you have to say it in round- "tech over truth."

Argument Preferences:

No specific argument by default will be rejected by me. If you can argue it, I want to hear it.

Topicality- Topicality is certainly a stock issue, but it's up the neg to show why a non-topical aff is bad (even if the violation is blatant or conceded.) This is still true in the context of K affs which don't defend a topical advocacy- however- if a sufficient enough job is done, I do tend to err neg in these rounds.

K- Though I have a modest background in cutting, running, and judging Kritiks, I've never had the greatest relationship with hyper dense or esoteric K-theory (Think Deleuze-esque). If you are going to run these types of arguments, be prepared to give clear and compelling rebuttals which tell the story of the K.

Theory- I have a really hard time voting for a theory position that doesn't take at least a significant portion of the last two speeches (significant determined by the context of the round). In round abuse is key for the most convincing ballots.

Condo- I like condo bad arguments more than most judges, but don't expect reasoning which boils down to "I'm overwhelmed" to secure the win.

Performance- no issue with it!

Presentation Preferences:

Speed is totally fine with me, but I find my ability to flow comes best when it is clear. I love it when tags are slowed down, and analytics especially need a clearer (often slower) explanation compared to card text. Even card text should be slowed down if you want me to note a specific internal warrant.

In general, abide by the rule that if you want me to pay specific attention to something, or vote on something later in the round, you're going to win more if you emphasize it.

In the same vein, I hate purposefully obfuscated arguments for the purposes of confusing the other team. To get a gist of my brightline, removing position names in the doc is fine -- changing position names to be less standard is iffy -- answering clarifying cross-ex questions with purposefully confusing jargon or tautologies, is not (and yes, I notice.) That's all to say- don't read hidden A-spec in front of me.

Quick life hack: looking at me while giving your speech will give you a ton of information about how it's being received (am I thinking, flowing, nodding, confused-looking, typing, time-concerned etc.) This can be utilized to your advantage as I am quite expressive.

Behavior Preferences:

If I were to emphasize any of these categories the most, it would be this one. Please please please make the debate space an inclusive, empathetic, and (dare I say) fun activity for all participants. Belittling, mocking, or name-calling your opposition is not an effective rhetorical tactic, and you'll often find it has the opposite effect on the round results.

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

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

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good

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

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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, 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

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