Coach at Edina 22-24

NDT/CEDA debater at Iowa 23-??, (formerly Minnesota 21-23), HS Policy debater at Edina (2016-21).

he/him

Yes, I want to be on the chain - umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

There's no record of me on the wiki from 2021-23 due to some of the stuff going on last year with fascists on tabroom. That said, if you're interested in reading trans/queer stuff, email me or find me at a tournament and I can send you lit recs, affs I've read in the past, and/or good youtube videos of high quality debates in this corner of the library.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment!

I also usually carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me.

TL;DR - Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Making the activity accessible for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decision and comments in line with this.

I have all the technical debate knowledge necessary to judge the arguments you read. However, I am less familiar with policy-style arguments because I have been a one-off K + K aff debater for around five-six years now, both in high school and college debate.

I judge mostly clash and KvK debates, but I coach teams who read arguments across the debate spectrum and have enough experience to understand the meta and function of policy-style arguments.

General - Preround

Speaks challenge:

• Specific extensions: if you, at some point during a debate, identify a card, extend it by quoting a line from the card that contains a warrant for why the claim the card is making is true, and explain how that warrant interacts with the answer that the other team has made to your argument and why I should prefer your warrant, I will give you +0.2 speaks.
• Final rebuttal overviews: if the first thing out of your mouth in the 2NR or 2AR makes a good-faith attempt to fill in the following sentence template by identifying why you win the debate, **regardless of if you actually win the debate**, I will give you +0.2 speaks. "We win the debate because [X argument] [OUTWEIGHS or TURNS THEIR OFFENSE or whatever else applies]. Their best argument is [Y argument], but even if they win that, we still win because [explanation]."

Speaks anti-challenge:
Current high school debate has a block reliance problem. Obviously the 2AC and 2NC/1NR are speeches that are conducive to reading lots of blocks - that's totally fine! I understand that blocks are useful tools that have strategic applicability!

That said, I can also tell when blocks have no applicability to the debate at hand and are a substitution for reactive and critical thinking. If you are simply reading from a backfile at the expense of reactive and critical thinking, with no contextualization to the debate, particularly in final rebuttals, this saddens me, and will impact your speaks.

Argumentative choices:

I will try my very best to vote on the arguments made on the flow, as all good judges do. Adapt at your own risk, which is to say, probably don't. I'd rather see you do what you do best than see you try to run a K without knowing how.

I'd like to think that the Ks I am most well-read on tend to be material and have real-world applications and conclusions. Examples and counterexamples are helpful in these debates and often carry a lot of weight when done well - I will reward good examples with good speaks! I find that pomo-type lit bases are less intuitive for me to understand, which means that examples and thorough, logical explanations can be more important if that's your jam.

I am increasingly disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a core strategy. This issue is probably too complex to adequately express in a paradigm. One thing that I can convey clearly: I am even more disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a timeskew or throwaway. If you do this in front of me, you will get a 25 and I will initiate a discussion about why that is a tokenizing and harmful practice.

Speed/Clarity:

Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. I flow by ear, and if I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you.

Judge instruction:

Always good. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction, which includes sentences like "all we have to win is X", "we don't have to win that X", "start evaluating the debate with X", "prioritize empirics", etc. It would behoove you to flow and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

Sneaky behavior:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because they believe there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. A non-exhaustive list of what this might look like --

• reading a bunch of offcase that you can't explain in CX for "timeskew"
• procrastinating on giving an order to not reveal your strategic choices for a few extra seconds
• not opensourcing (when there isn't a good reason - think, personal content in a performance)
• lying or changing up disclosure of past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

This does not make for good and high quality debates. Please do what you can to make the community better - in other words, do not do this.

Some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - come across as mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it.

Finally, sneaky behavior does not go unnoticed by judges. It makes it seem like you're unconfident that you will win the debate and need every possible, which lends itself to low speaks.

The speaks boost over the course of a tournament will do much more in helping you clear than whatever tiny advantage you get from the other team being slightly more unprepared.

Evidence ethics:

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

Policy Minnesota Locals (Not national-circuit tournaments):

Speaks Incentives:

I'm so glad you're reading my paradigm! Yay! If you let me know that you've read my paradigm at some point before the debate starts, and remind me to do so, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

If you are from a school who does not currently have a wiki, and you want help setting one up, I will help you set it up after my RFD and give you a 30 for posting cites for the round on it. If your coaches don't want you to do this, I will default to their veto, but in general, I think that disclosure will help improve the quality of and continue to build the well-being of local debate!

Independently, if you are from a school who does currently have a wiki, I will give you +0.5 speaker points for posting cites - you should tell me this after the debate is done, because I will otherwise very likely forget.

Debate Content:

When you extend cards to respond to the other team's cards or analytics, you don't have to remember what the author's name is - "1AC 4" is sufficient to tell me which one it was - but you most certainly do have to... actually extend it, by explaining the arguments that it makes and the warrants. I have noticed a trend where debaters will say things like "they say no solvency, but we do solve - extend all of our solvency cards, moving on". Please don't do this, because I will not grant you work that you didn't do over work that the other team did.

Primarily National Circuit Debaters at Locals:

If you are typically a national circuit debater, but you are using local circuit tournaments as a time to "meme" or mess around, this will make me very sad. I fundamentally believe that strengthening quality of debate on the local circuit can set the conditions for a better national circuit with lots of teams from MN competing at high levels. Please contribute to this if you can by respecting local debate. Happy to chat about my thoughts after rounds or at tournaments, because I think that I had a lack of understanding of this concept when I was debating in HS!

LD:

K - 1

LARP - 1

Phil/Tricks/Theory - pref me at your own risk, I guess?

I led lab at NSD philly last summer. I dabble in coaching national-circuit LD.

Nevertheless, while I'm confident in my ability to adjudicate anything that would appear in a policy debate according to community norms, I fear that my decisions in phil or tricks rounds may not follow convention simply because I have no understanding of what convention for those styles is.

If I'm judging you and that's your jam, go for it, but heavy judge instruction and a bit more explanation than normal will go far in making sure that my decision lines up with your intentions on the flow.

Go read the section on debate's clarity problem. For some reason, this is particularly bad in LD. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I cannot flow them, and thus they will not make it into my decision, which nobody wants.

If you read critical disabilities studies, awesome. I'm here for it. On the other hand, if you read that absurdly offensive Mollow aff... I guess, please reach out for lit recommendations?? Just don't read that aff in front of me or anyone else. If you don't know what this means, it doesn't apply to you.

Finally, when you disclose an aff as "new", that means that every single card in the affirmative has literally never been read by you, teammates, or prepgroupmates before. Things that "new" does not mean:

• this aff has not been read on this topic, but has otherwise been read by me or teammates/prepgroupmates on other topics
• this aff has one new card, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has new tags or new highlighting, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has been read by others who have access to the same files like teammates/prepgroupmates (ever), even if I have never read it.

The practice of disclosing "new" gives large schools and people with the privilege of hiring private coaching or joining prep groups an even larger advantage.

Therefore, if I am judging a round where the aff was disclosed as "new" and I am given proof of that it, as well as proof that the aff is not truly new but instead one of the four categories above, I will give the aff team a 25 regardless of who wins the debate.

PF:

Like LD, I have very limited experience judging PF.

Because I come from a policy background, I will evaluate the debate on the flow, so dropped args = true. Like with LD, I have non-existent knowledge about community norms for judging events that aren't policy.

Send your cards.

I will boost speaks for teams who send their evidence to the email chain before giving your speech without the opponent asking.

For teams who do not send their evidence to the email chain before the speech starts, if the opponent points it out and also sends their own cards to the chain before giving their speeches, I will take speaks away from the non-card-sending team and give them to the card-sending team.

Independent from the above, I will not stand for educational dishonesty (blatant misrepresentation of evidence, et cetera). If this becomes an issue in the debate, the team who committed the violation will receive an L and lowest possible speaks - don't test me on this. If it doesn't come up in the debate, but I notice that it has happened on my own, I don't feel comfortable throwing away the flow of the round, but I will still give that team the lowest possible speaks and take any other action that I deem necessary given the context of the round.

Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

Feel free to run any argument you'd like, as long as you run it well I will evaluate it. I have a strong negative preference to K-affs however, please don't run those.

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 11

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

Rounds judged this year (insert any year here): usually between 80-100

***Include me on the email chain (LD, CX)

Background:
I debated for St. Francis High School, in Minnesota, from 1989 to 1993, during which time I debated two years of CX and two years of LD. I also debated four years of CEDA debate, debating for various schools. I have been the Director of Speech and Debate at St. Croix Prep in Stillwater, Minnesota since 2013, and I have coached LD, CX, WSD, PF, BQ and all speech categories. I also teach ninth grade Ancient World Literature at St. Croix Prep.

Overall Philosophy:
I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships of different arguments and/or philosophical ideas. I also believe that competitive debate is an exercise in effective rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos). With all this in mind, I love debates that involve teams that know their position in the debate and are passionate about their arguments. If one team in a debate shows that they care more about their arguments than another team, this definitely can have an impact on how I evaluate the round. I typically evaluate each team’s use of evidence, reasoning, and passion to further their arguments and clash with their opponent’s arguments, hence my previous mention of the role of the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Most importantly: Be consistent, tell a good story, and explain your arguments in the context of what has happened up to that point in the debate. Teams that just read pre-written rebuttal speeches that don't contextualize their arguments don't usually do very well in front of me.

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and impact analysis. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I am not voting on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. However, if it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, there may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond as often as possible. I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX debate).

Speed:
Short Version: Be clear and intentional on your tags and author names; you can go faster on your evidence, but I should still be able to understand you. I prefer passion and intensity to speed. Most of my debaters are traditional LD debaters, so I'm not a big fan of circuit speed. Will I flow it if you are slowing for tags and authors? Sure. Will I like it, probably not s'much. In this regard, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you just go on-case and dump a bunch of stuff on the flow, I won't do your work for you.

Long Version: Many of today’s debaters (at least circuit debaters) are not doing much that is different than what has been done in the speed category over the last twenty years. However, I do have some preferences in this regard. When you are speaking at 250+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which invariably leads to miscommunications later on in the extension debate. One request that I have to resolve this issue is that debaters speak more articulate and “slower” in their presentation of their signposting, their claims, and their citations. This really shouldn't slow down the overall presentation of the speech by much, but it should make the presentation of those “flow-able” points more intentional. Additionally, I will not shout "clear" or "slower" if you aren't articulating your signposts, tags, and cites. An optimal speed is probably around 200-250 on average for me if you at least slow down for these three areas.

Persuasion:
As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

Preferences:
While I believe, as previously stated, that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some topical awareness in a debate. With that in mind, I would suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic as worded in the resolution, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate. I would say that my favorite debates are debates that are actually directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I do enjoy critical affs that are actually topical). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid and supported rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination:

I really enjoy a great cross examination, especially because it allows debaters to really show their skills when it comes to the interactive part of debate. I think that cross examination is a place that really allows the most prepared debaters to shine. Because of this, I usually determine how I am going to assign speaker points based on a debater's performance in cross-ex. So, please don't ask if you can use the rest of CX as prep. That will always be a big "No."

I am okay with tag-team cross-examination in policy debate to a degree, but I hate it when one debater is clearly the puppet and their partner is the puppet master. This becomes obvious if one debater has no clue how to answer questions posed about what they just read in the speech. That being said, I would encourage you to use tag-team cross-ex as an emergency cord, not as something that should be used frequently.

The Ballot:
Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, as far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

Policy Notes:
As has been mentioned previously, I am accepting of most arguments, as long as the debaters are able to explain the rationale behind running such an argument and the impact that the argument has on the debate. I love direct clash, since I believe that this shows a team’s level of preparedness, especially in policy debate, but I also love good critical discussions as well. Overall, I would say that the biggest issue for me is speed. Please, please, please, at the very least, make your signposting, claims, and cites audibly clear and slower than the rest of your speech. I believe this also offers you the opportunity to add emphasis to these points as well, and in so doing show the passion you have for your arguments.

LD Notes:
For me, everything in Lincoln-Douglas debate should come back to the framework debate (value/criteria). However, if a debater decides to run a policy affirmative (or counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks on the negative), then I will decide the debate accordingly. However, just because you have a plan doesn't mean that the framework debate is automatically a Utilitarianism debate. If the opposing side reads a value and criteria and makes the debate about how we are to evaluate arguments (value/criteria), then you need to be ready for this debate, since (as previously stated) this is my predisposition in LD debate. A debater could win all of their contention level arguments and still lose a debate if they cannot prove that their method for evaluating the arguments should be preferred over their opponent's method. I think that some of the best LD debaters are those that can attack criteria with supporting evidence, or they can prove how they can perm their opponent’s criteria. Ultimately, I will vote on the voting issues presented in the debate (or impact calculus if the debate becomes a Util debate), but I will consider the criteria debate first and last when making any decision. That being said, I will entertain "nontraditional" affirmatives and negative positions in a debate (Topicality, Kritiks, Theory, etc), but you need to explain its relevance to the topic and/or arguments that have already been presented in the debate.

How I vote: I want debaters to tell me why I should vote for their position over their opponent's position. If you just barf a bunch of arguments onto the flow and don't explain how I should evaluate them against what your opponents have said, then I probably won't be too keen on buying in to your "story." I'm not a fan of judge intervention, so don't leave me too much room to make my own decision.

NEW STUFF***Kritikal Arguments Continued(CX/LD):

As mentioned before, I enjoy a well-run kritikal argument on either side of a topic; however, with this in mind, I have a few significant points I would like to discuss.

First, I believe that a kritik only holds its value when maintaining all primary parts as a cohesive whole (link, impact, alternative, and alternative solvency). That being said, if you try to extend the front half of a kritik as a non-unique disad, I will be unlikely to vote for it. There is some room for methodology to become a singular issue, especially in KvK debates, but I haven't seen those as often.

Second, I dislike impact turns on kritiks, and these usually come across to me as supercharged links to the kritik. That being said, I would strongly suggest you avoid trying to impact turn a kritik. Link debates and alternative debates are much more persuasive.

Third, a good alternative is a necessary part of the debate, but it can hinge on what you are trying to accomplish in the debate. If you are trying to affect change in the debate space with the hope of spillover, then your alternative should reflect this specifically. If you are trying to play the hypothetical game that the policymaking affirmative is playing, then play that game but be prepared to explain specific steps to the world of the alternative and what that world will look like.

Fourth, I am most familiar with the following Ks: Cap, SetCol, Biopower, Ableism, Death Cult, Anthro, MIC, PIC, IR, Borders. However, if you can explain the kritik to me in more cogent terms, I am willing to entertain other kritiks.

Fifth, if you are running a kritik, try to slow down a little. I don't like to feel like my brain is melting.

Prep Time:Please don't steal prep by taking extra time to assemble the doc, attach the doc, and send the doc. I will run prep until the speech doc is received by me.

ONLINE: To keep these things running smoothly, I won't disclose at the end of the round.

THEORY: DIsclosure theory in LD is a non-starter for me. Be better. I am a small school coach, so I know the argument. I just don't like it. I firmly believe that disclosure norms are net worse for small schools.

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

I'd prefer you refer to me as Benjy but Judge is fine, names are hard. he/him benjydebate@gmail.com

include me on the chain and please please please subject it correctly, makes everyone's lives so much better, format should be:

Round; tournament; aff team [AFF] vs neg team [NEG]

ex: R3 Rosebowl Minnesota BH [AFF] vs UMN QL [NEG]

current college debater at UMN -- debated local circuit 3 years in HS

TLDR, I have 2 minutes before round:

yes tag team but it'll hurt your speaks if the person who "shouldn't" be talking during any given cx is stepping in a lot

don't know a crazy amount about the topic so err on the side of overexplaining things especially wacky links chains. (x100 for K args and acronyms)

tech > truth

unlimited condo for carded 1nc args -- more amicable to the impact of the violation for useless analytic only cps (cough cardless con con cough) and cping out of a straight turn (not to say won't vote on 1 condo bad if debated in affs favor just threshold is higher and I suspect you will struggle in 2AR to articulate why a model that allows 1 whole kickable CP is unsavable)

I'm probably more expressive then I should be -- if I look confused I'm probably confused, if I'm nodding you're making sense to me, great job

at the end of the day I will evaluate the debate off my flow -- this activity should be a fun place to learn and compete.

CX time includes asking about cards read--marked doc threshold is 3+ marked cards--realistically no amount of skipped cards unless there is something in play that makes flowing/following the speech impossible

prep time ends the moment you are not going to edit your doc further and are ready to click the save button--it's unlikely you should need to type after you've stopped prep--going to the bathroom isn't prep but obv try to do before round

I don't evaluate things outside the round, I think part of the beauty of debate is reading heg good one round and the anarchy K the next.

please ask other thoughts before round, happy to answer, don't care if it's technically answered somewhere in this wall of text below

More elaborate thoughts:

(mostly here for pref sheets and because the paradigm is the only place I get to soapbox about my thoughts on debate and I intend to take advantage of that)

toplevel stuff that doesn't get its own section:

I highly encourage asking questions, it is by far the best way to improve at debate bar nothing, I would rather have someone post-round me then someone visibly check out the second I say who won. Yes feel free to email me after the round but the longer you wait the more my memory will fade. If you do feel like post rounding me please expressly point out the part you disagree with and ask directly about it rather then poke at it with weird passive aggressive indirect questions.

send your analytics!! fundamentally makes debate better for everyone and produces higher quality debates (yes this will help your speaks if that's the incentive you need)

same for open sourcing, at least having 1AC 1NCs up is so much better then not

bigotry to the point of voting issue comes before T comes before theory comes before substance

probably most unpopular debate opinion is that in round abuse > models debates--I think this is me being jaded about individual debates actually changing subjectivities but to me actually being unable to win this debate because the aff was so barely relevant to the topic or they made the 2AC impossible by reading 12 condo matters so much more then if this single debate justifies _______ as an acceptable practice. This is because to me that's the impact my ballot can resolve. On the other hand I truly do not believe this ballot from this one judge who has biases that are polar opposite to some others will mean you don't do the same next debate.

am most likely to view debate through a similar lens as Miranda Ehrlich, Owen PF, Nolan Johnson, J Parrish, Kacee Wells, Josiah Ferguson and really anyone else who has worked with/debated for the U of M.

judges that don't follow along on doc make no sense, images, relevant lines from cards, perm texts, missed author name because I'm dumb, etc. I am convinced this is the correct way to do it and judges that don't just are trying to flex how strong their flowing is to the point of hubris (that is not to say I will backflow for you, if I miss an arg but see it's in the doc I'm not flowing something I couldn't understand)

on that note will clear three times after that ur donezo, go slower, I give up, I cannot vote on an arg I didn't have flowed til the last rebuttals

no inserting cards except previously read lines by other the other team

please please flow everything after the 1NC

arg by arg:

K: I am probably a harder sell then most, will absolutely vote on it if you win it on the flow, though I will make no pretensions about not having bias going into the round, general thoughts in no particular order:

on a truth level I strongly believe consequences of the plan should probably be weighed vs K and to think otherwise destroys a lot of the core educational value of debate. That is to say unless you think you are crushing them on the fw page (which you very well might be) I am much more likely to vote for a team that proves link turns case, alt solves everything, K impact outweighs etc.

The aff should bully the alt more, lock them down in cross to what it is, if it happens, how it resolves the links etc. negs are so shifty about the materiality of the alt but only if you let them be--if they stay shifty when directly questioned on it in cx I'm much more likely to allow the 1AR/2AR wax poetic about vague/utopian alts bad and reject them. for the neg when you seem to shift in and out of doing a fiated action depending on what the 2ac went for I will be unhappy. If you say revolution needed, be ready to defend the implications of an attempted revolution regardless of the 2nr attempting to reconstrue it as "thinking about" or "imagining a world in which..."

Additionally I find myself quite persuadable to logical aff explanations of how the alt could resolve the links regardless of the plan, for example if we're starting a revolution to overthrow the entire usfg or doing mutual aid I find it hard to believe the make or break is the status of our military policy over Saudi Arabia. Also helped when the aff can pull out thumpers that likely double bind the alt into either already can't happen because we've passed the same plan about the UK or if alt can overcome that it can overcome the plan.

On a truth level I think perfcon fundamentally disproves reps links and have yet to hear a compelling argument why that's wrong. (this probably justifies severance perms and maybe justifies reject the arg)

as far as ROB/ROJ args go I just evaluate them as a teams framework interp, and no the other team didn't drop it because they extended their fw but didn't say the words role of the ballot.

Impacts on Ks often get forgotten about , both teams need to acknowledge and debate about them more. (strongly believe 95% of impacts on Ks are either terminally nonunique or the alt solves about 1% of them)

EDIT: okay first full year of judging down and probably voted for 75% of the Ks extended to the 2NR, if you are aff please please please introduce some sort of framework and actually extend it with your offense throughout the debate, so many teams just extending near terminal defense to the negs interp without telling me the world of the aff interp or why it should be preferred. Gave quite a few "on a truth level I think you link you lose is a bad model of debate but the aff literally never told me how else to evaluate the debate/why the aff model is good past the 2ac so I am forced to default to a model of debate I think is bad because there just isn't an alternative/isn't a reason your interp is actually good for debate."

T v Policy: Probably type of round I am least confident judging, that means you should probably do more big picture work in terms of explaining what the topic looks like under your interp vs the other. Be careful to flag what is offense for your interp vs what's just good defense to theirs. impact gets 10x stronger if you can prove in round abuse because of how untopical they are. That being said just losing one core DA you didn't even read probably doesn't outweigh education from researching and debating a broader topic and makes reasonability a decent piece of defense to overcome. This shouldn't need to be said but if you're going for it 2nr should be 5 mins straight of T. I think the phrase plan text in a vacuum has lost all meaning and people just use it as a buzzword to force the other team to answer it. intent to define is very important and when not told otherwise I default to legal definitions being better. (models stuff above applies here)

T v K aff: will elaborate more on the K aff portion but in an evenly debated round I likely err neg, I think limited topics are probably good and K affs rarely help the topic or stimulate change inside or outside debate. Will vote on both fairness and clash and it baffles me how so many judges really only vote on one impact and expect you to tailor your strategy to them (but also clash is 1000 times more true and if you think otherwise you are wrong and bad)

CP: the 2nd best part of debate only to fun impact turns. Especially true for huge 1 card counterplan that results in solving case. Probably my 2nd most unpopular opinion is solves better is absolutely a viable reason to vote neg and can be the correct 2NR on a counterplan. My general CP enthusiasm decreases once planks get to around 7+, especially if the plan text is longer then the total sum of highlighted words. probably more friendly to consult, agent etc. cps then most . Sufficiency framing is a nothing word that doesn't ever need to be said, I don't see why a judge would ever sway from evaluating a CP that way. states and municipality fiat are probably good, private actor and international fiat are almost certainly bad. (though that really never rises above reject the arg)

judge kick: yes but you need to say the words judge kick at some point before the 2nr for me to do it, (saying squo is always an option counts). Am very amicable to being convinced I shouldn't if the aff says so, honestly on a truth level probably one of the topics I'm most 50/50 on whether it's good or bad.

If you made it this far you probably care about your speaks so give a genuine complement to your opponent on something they did well after the debate and I'll give you a bump.

K affs: probably not going to be the judge you want for this, regardless I will vote on them, I need to be convinced of three main things:

1. There is no topical version of the aff that could be ran under the current resolution, so you need to prove why a TVA given by the neg is leaps and bounds away from the aff and excludes most of the affs literature base. Just because it uses the usfg isn't enough to inherently make a TVA undebateable.

2. Why a ballot matters: What impacts do you access exclusively through getting the ballot that you don't get if you come in and have the same debate but lose and after the round I say "cool aff I learned something today and I will talk about this with people around me".

3. You wholeheartedly believe in what you're running and that doing so will positively impact the debate space (/world if that's your vibe) not just to get a ballot and dodge clash. I strongly believe K affs lose all value if there isn't a genuine real world thing you are aiming to achieve by reading it.

I will not vote for arguments pertaining to actions or events occurring outside of the given debate. To attempt to adjudicate these issues without the necessary context would be a shameful use of my ballot and a disservice to the community. Introducing these arguments and making it a focal point of the debate is guaranteed to be met with a loss, no exceptions.

Yes, put me on the email chain - koperski.debate@gmail.com

Any pronouns

Please refer to me as my name and not as "judge" in round.

University of Iowa 2025
Farmington High school 2021

Topics I've debated:
Immigration - 2018/19
Arm Sales - 2019/20
Criminal Justice Reform - 2020/21
Antitrust laws - 2021/22
Legal Personhood - 2022/23

Top level

1. Clarity over speed - this is even more important in the era of online debating, and you should always send your analytics in speech docs

2. When debating case, the first thing I look to is solvency. If I conclude that your aff doesn't do what you say it does, then I have no reason to vote for the affirmative. If solvency becomes a core issue in the debate, I will always go and read the aff's cards.

3. The neg needs to explain what their advocacy on the Kritik or Counterplan does for me to weigh it, it really boils down to "If I don't know what it is, I won't weigh it"

4. I am a good judge to go for Topicality or Theory in front of so long as you can explain things sufficiently and really impact it out - for novices, "Packet checks T" is not an argument

5. Cx is a speech, so use it well to attack your opponents while propping yourself up - tag team is fine so long as its not your partner taking up the whole cross period when you are supposed to be asking the questions

6. Do not read objectively bad procedurals in round, this means stuff like arguing USFG is faceters guild or bad links in the citations when you forgot to remove a period at the end (it shows that you don't care for debating, but rather you just want to waste your opponents time). I find these arguments to be detrimental to debate as an activity because it distracts from critical thinking and good argumentation, to being caught up in semantics that really don't matter. However, if the procedurals are based in good faith I am more sympathetic to voting on it. If your procedurals are in bad faith, I will dock speaks for it, I have no tolerance for it anymore.

7. I do not judge kick unless instructed to, if the other team argues that I should not judge kick after instructed to, then they should explain in detail the reasons why judge kicking is bad. If judge kick bad is argued, I am very sympathetic to agreeing that it's bad and end up not judge kicking the position. You read it, and now you must stick with it.

8. Tech > Truth - However, both are important in a debate round, and I can be swayed to evaluate Truth>Tech if you warrant out why viewing the round this way is inherently better

9. If you have to ask if there are any theoretical reasons to reject the team, one of two things is true, either you weren't paying attention, or the other team isn't giving enough importance to them. Reasons to reject the team should be at the forefront of the debate if you actually want me to reject the team on something.

10. My general philosophy on evidence is that you should read less evidence that is of higher quality rather than reading more evidence. Debate is a game of arguments, not one of speed. I am also very sympathetic to teams that rehighlight the other teams evidence because I believe that it's the evidence that should be making the arguments in a debate, and if the evidence you choose to read contradicts itself (even if it's part of the same source that you do not read), then you shouldn't be reading that card, and the teams that point this out and argue it well, will see an increase in speaker points and an easier path to the ballot.

Ethics Violations

I, as a judge will not intervene on something that can be considered an ethics violation without the opposing team raising the issue in round as well as clearly stating that they are making an ethics challenge. If/When that occurs, the round will stop, and I will assess the alleged violation. If I find that a violation has occurred, the challengers will win the round, and the team that committed the ethics violation will receive at most 25 speaker points. In the event that I find that no ethics violation has occurred, the challengers will lose the round and receive at most 25 speaker points.

Specifics to off case positions

Theory - I believe that theory is under utilized in debate, a theory debate should end up being about in round harms and methods and models of debate. I enjoy a good theory debate, this does not mean you should read theory in front of me, especially if you don't know how to impact it out. I typically lean aff on condo and disclosure theory, but will easily vote neg on condo if they argue arbitrariness of interps well. I do believe that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but, there are a few exceptions to this, especially if the other team does not make the argument that it's not a reason to reject the team.

K - Going for the K can be a bit of a daunting task, however if you can use the affs evidence to point out a link and can explain how the alt functions and solves then you will be in a pretty good position. The aff should always perm the K. I'm familiar with most kritiks that you'll probably run, but it's always a good idea to explain things especially if you are running a more obscure or high theory K. I also find that a lot of K teams get trapped in an echo chamber of their alt and assume that they don't need to explain the alt on a more general level. Being able to clearly explain your alt in a way that everyone can understand will greatly increase your chances of winning the alt debate (assume you're explaining it to someone who has never done debate). Yes your Baudrillard

T - Topicality comes down to competing interpretations and methods of debate, your aff simply being topical isn't enough to win on T, you need to prove why the resolution should include your aff. As stated above, "Novice packet checks T" is not an argument and I won't consider it, instead, as the aff, you should challenge T head on instead of trying to skirt the question of Topicality. I believe that a more limited topic is always better than a broad topic, it allows for more depth and conversation about the topic, and it encourages innovation and better research for both the aff and the neg instead of finding some obscure topic that's impossible to research. I also do not believe that "plan text in a vacuum" is a good "We meet" argument, it encourages bad and vague plan writing. A good limits argument should include a case list with explanation on why what their topic includes that yours doesn't is bad.

CP - Every CP needs to have a net benefit for me to weigh it. You need to have warranted analysis on the net benefit and how the CP solves. Solvency deficits, when argued well can easily take down a CP. As the aff, you always need to perm the CP and extend the perm throughout the whole debate, If there is no perm on the CP you need to win a large solvency deficit.

DA - Weigh the impacts of the DA to the impacts of the aff, I personally like link debates and find them to be the best way to challenge or defend a DA, that being said, this does not absolve you from doing impact work, if the link isn't clearly contested the impact is the next thing I look at, so focus more on the impacts, because if the DA doesn't link, the impacts of the DA are moot.

Case - See top level point 2 for aff stuff. For the neg, impact turn everything, if they say "x" is good, then say "x" is bad, if you have the cards for it, then I will listen (unless it's so untrue that it becomes harmful). I will listen to even the most absurd impact turns and vote on them, but only if you can actually convince me that they are true.

K affs - I am not the best judge to read these in front of, that being said, I have ran K affs before. My general philosophy is that in order to win while running a K aff, you must do the following

1. Prove why the K aff is better than following the resolution (unless you are reading a topical K aff, in which case, you'll just need to explain what makes it topical if it's not obvious)

2. Win on FW and on how your model of debate is better, the easier it is to understand your framework and the model of debate it proposes, the more likely you are to win it in front of me.

3. Do enough work on the impact/advocacy level to prove that not only is the impact/advocacy necessary, but also why we should first focus on that and not the general impact scenarios in typical debates.

4. Avoid relying on K and FW tricks to win, I greatly dislike them and I find them to ruin the spirit of debate. Debate is and should continue to be focused on education, by relying on tricks, it takes away from this education and skills building.

5. On Framework, SLOW DOWN, I'd rather you make less arguments that are smart and well thought out, than make a lot of arguments just to fill the flow. Also, if you are reading pre-made arguments, send them out, going fast and not sending what you read is super problematic and I find that a ton of teams do this as a way to win, and I find this practice to be detrimental and contributes to exclusionary practices in debate.

My views on debate

1. I believe that debate is a competitive game that can have some real world implications through rhetoric and discussions of how different forms of knowledge and power shape someone's lived experiences

2. This is a reading and research activity - attack your opponents warrants and author qualifications but if you are going to do this, make it clear why I should reject that piece of evidence. If you are going to run a Kritik in front of me, the best way to win the link debate is to use the aff's 1AC evidence to prove a link.

3. I have no tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Homophobia etc. in debate. This is an educational safe space and everyone should be treated with the upmost respect. If I find that you are making the space unsafe or problematic, I will dock speaker points, and if it's bad enough, I will drop the team. I find that the debate space can be very problematic at times and that it drives people out of the activity, and I want to ensure that this does not continue.

4. Actively debating is a performance and you are the performer, the time is yours when you speak and you may use that time however you want, but you should have a justification as to why you do the things you do.

5. At the end of the day, debate should always be something you do for fun. Debate can be tiring for everyone, so maintaining civility in the debate should always be the top priority. You don't know what your opponents have been through, or how they feel about debate, and I would hate if you contributed to why people leave this activity.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are mostly based off of the vibes in round. Everyone starts at a 28.5, debating well and being nice will increase your speaks, conversely, poor debating and being mean/hostile will lower your speaks. If you get below a 27, that means you either made a massive round ending mistake that should have been easy to spot, or you said something objectionable. If you get a 25, that means you either lost on an ethics violation, repeatedly said something in round that was objectionable and unethical, or said something about your opponents or myself that is beyond any doubt meant to demean, dehumanize, ostracize, or cause mental anguish.

Central '19-'23

Currently coaching for Central

Hi! I’m Cayden, I use they/them pronouns, please use them! I’m generally quite a neutral judge however I think that making debate an inclusive and fun space outweighs all else.

I have bad hearing so please speak extra loud and if it’s online, make sure your mic is clear!

My email is cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com if there's an email chain I’d like to be on it for ease of everything. add

This note comes before anything in this paradigm and its at the top for a reason: Please just run whatever you feel best running. I would rather have you run something I’m generally not partial to well than something I like badly. The best debates come from people running what they know best, so do that!

MS/Nov notes-

1. What I said above about having fun in debates applies even more here, I coached MS and currently coach novice and truly just want it to be a positive experience for everyone involved!
2. Read a plan text! If you are going for a CP or K, read the CP text or alternative!
3. At the end of the day, my role in debate is to help you learn and grow, I am more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, please feel free to email me if you think of questions after the tournament is over!!!

Some notes:

Pls no death good args in front of me. Also if your args have TW/CW let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech.

Judge Instruction-I think debate has lost a lot of what I think is one of the most important pieces which is the story of arguments. I am down for the tech level, but you are much more likely to get my vote with good judge instruction and consistently explaining the story of your args and how they shake out by the end of the round.

Spreading- Clarity comes first. I will be on the speech doc for the ease of things however I will not flow off the speech doc. If I cannot understand your tag, date, and author I will flow it as an analytic. I firmly believe that policy debate would be a far better activity without spreading, that isn’t to say I see no purpose in spreading, I absolutely understand it, but I do think it is bad for our education. If you are reading this and worried I won't be able to understand you, just slow down on your tags a little bit for me and we are good, I can flow you I pinky promise. I will also call clear three times for each person after that, if I can't understand you I won't flow it.

In round non debate stuff: I debated online for a year+ so trust me, I fully understand that “normal” policy debate ethos has gone out of the window, that being said, I would prefer if you do whatever you can so I can hear/understand you better as my hearing is not great. I also will not tolerate being explicitly rude in round. I was a very assertive debater myself so I’m not saying don’t be assertive, but don’t just be flat out rude, especially during cross. You will be getting your speaks docked. As stated earlier, debate should be fun and inclusive and I think that this is an important part of it.

Tech v Truth- Not gonna lie, unsure who is like a true truth>tech judge these days. I'm securely tech>truth, only spot that I think is a little bit closer towards truth is on bad IL chains on DAs. I also weigh arguments as new the first time they have a warrant, analytic or ev.

T- I am down for T however my standards on T impacts are higher than the avergae natcir and lower than localcir. I default to models but am also more likely to happily pull the trigger on in round abuse.

Ks- I ran Ks on both sides and love them over most policy arguments however I’m not going to try and claim to understand your complex literature I just have not read. If you are able to explain your K literature well to me I would love to see you run your K, however if you can’t, I’m not going to try and do the work for you. I also probably buy most no link args over bad link args BUT I do tend to give alt solvency a fair bit of leniency. I am down for you link you lose good or bad debates, down for most K args, not a fan of baudy or psycho but I'll judge em fairly I just won't be the happiest camper.

PTX DAs- I kinda hate them but I totally get that they are a very legit strat especially on the topic, but please be able to defend why PC is real.

CPs- Go for it. I ran a lot of these and see they have a place, that being said I’m also very open to hearing arguments against that. I think that on perm theory I’m pretty deadset neutral but I default to test of competition (idk any judges who don't anymore). I can also be convinced that X type of CPs are bad for debate if given good education and fairness arguments.

K Affs- I ran one, go crazy, love a good planless debate, love a good framework debate. Some of my favorite rounds have been performance style but also some of my least favorite have been bad K affs. I am probably not your best judge for a fairness bad round. Also, I have only ever heard one good death of debate argument and I think nearly all of the rest are not worth it in front of me.

FWK- I go through this first if its present and it will never be a "wash" for me. I default to a policy maker but also ran basically every fw under the sun so I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Please slow down on this once you get to the rebuttals and I love techy cross applications of other flows to fw.

Condo!- I go into each round deadset neutral on condo. I've seen teams win condo v a 1 off conditional advocacy and teams win v condo running 10+ conditional advocacies. I probably am truly deadset neutral on my own opinions around the 6 condo advocacies line, slightly more likely to vote aff once you hit the 10 off mark. All of this can be 100% changed by the round in front of me (obviously) just know these are the mental lines I think I have.

Theory in general- I am sad to say I feel like I need to add this because of Central. I will vote on most theory args, I defualt to condo good but that can be easily changed in round. I also think in round abuse args are always going to be the strongest but models of debate is fine too. At the end of the day though, just because I will vote on it doesn't make me happy to and your speaks will reflect that.

Also, unless the tournament rulebook specifies disclosure, please don't run disclosure theory in front of me, I believe that if you can win on disclosure theory, you can win on something else.

Todd.mensink@gmail.com

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

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

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

About me:

Hi! My name is Teddy and I am the JV/Varsity coach for Tartan Senior! I've been coaching novice thru varsity in some capacity for the last 3 years, most of which with Farmington. I debated for Farmington for 2 years (Rosemount for 1) and the University of Minnesota for 3 years.

Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com

Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood & Nukes

Topics coached: Water, NATO & Fiscal Redistro

Paradigm:

I think that debate is probably a game that tests policy options designed to resolve problems outlined by the resolution/1AC--the AFF should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the NEG is only to test the AFFs proposal.

I generally default to tech over truth / whoever I think did the better debating (as opposed to policy-making), but can be persuaded to adopt a role of the judge/ballot that prioritizes truth. I think that education can potentially spill over and that discussion rounds are good.

I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K. I am probably not the best judge for theory debates or high theory Ks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters and has an immediate impact.

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me. Send out long analytic blocks if you're going to spread them--otherwise you're relying on my ears alone to flow that (which is not to your benefit). I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).

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

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

Round Framing:

"My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Practices:

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

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

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

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

Debater Experience:

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

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

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

Overall Practices:

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

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

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

Predispositions:

Topicality:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

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

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

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

CP's:

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

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

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

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

DA's:

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

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

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

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

Even if statements are your friend.

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

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

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

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

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

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

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

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

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

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

Hey! I'm Lizzy (she/her) & I'm about to be your judge!!

Please put me on the email chain: lizzysabel@gmail.com

4 years of high school debate at Eagan High School (MN) & now I'm a coach there. I've been judging for 8ish years now. I'm a University of St. Thomas Alumni (Roll Toms), and I majored in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

My main goal is for you to have fun, get better at debate, & maintain a safe environment for all debaters.

TLDR: do what you're going to do; my job as a judge is not to police your arguments, it's to evaluate the round presented to me.

----- FYI -----

*Clarity over speed. I will be flowing on paper (most likely stolen from you lol) and voting based on what is on my flow. It is a valuable skill to read your judge, and to do that you need to look at them. Go as fast as you want just make sure you're clear and I'm writing down what you say. That being said, I generally prefer a mid-speed/slower debate. If you are unclear, I will say "clear."

*If you want me to think something, you must say it. I try my best to not intervene on any issue and decide the round entirely based on what the debaters do/say in round. I will not make arguments for you that aren't on the flow.

*Clearly label your arguments. Organize your speeches, label positions, signpost, use short tags, and identify arguments that you are responding to (ex. "off the no link").

*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' (ex. timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

*I tend to be skeptical of extinction & nuclear war impacts. If you do have those impacts, pls have a good internal link chain. I'm more favorable to impacts like racism, sexism, ableism, poverty, anti-Blackness, homophobia, sexual violence, etc. But, I still enjoy impacts like climate change, resource wars, etc.

*Write my ballot for me. Every judge you have wants an easy decision. In your rebuttal overviews tell me exactly why you are winning this debate (ideally paired with some killer impact analysis).

*My speaker points are generally high (my guess is an average of 28.5). I will reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, good cx questions, technical skills, and being respectful to your opponents. I love a good joke, pun, tasteful use of slang, and/or pop culture references in a debate :) pls make me laugh

*Tag Team CX is chill, just BE RESPECTFUL. If you want to waste your 3 min of free prep by asking a bunch of questions for your partner, go off, I don't care. Don't get it twisted though, I won't let you take your cross ex for prep; if you don't have any questions, your cx time ends. I will time prep & speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too. Don't steal prep, it's annoying and unfair. I fear that I did it all of the time, so I know all of your little tricks haha.

*Unless specified as a requirement by the tournament rules, "new affirmatives bad" is not a good argument. This activityis supposed to help you learn to think on your feet and be strategic, do that. If someone is running a new aff, I will be lenient to the neg on generic links, especially paired with a T violation that proves the link.

*"Tech over Truth." I generally proscribe to this. Line by line is a lost art.

*If you claim in-round abuse, you need proof. I'm literally begging you.

*You need to respond to case (and have CLASH). It's very hard to win as the neg after conceding the entire aff. Cross applications from other flows are chill, but not enough.

----- Specific Argument Breakdown -----

T: Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. My favorite argument as a debater was T, so I generally have a higher threshold for what needs to be said on the flow (for both sides). I generally believe that jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote (why is nobody going for this anymore smh). RVIs are dumb... unless there is (once again) proof of abuse in round. SPEC debates are not interesting to me, but I will listen.

FW: This is just a glorified T debate. Switch-side isn't a great offensive argument, but I will vote on it if I'm forced lol. I think the neg should have a TVA to make their FW viable. I just need teams to tell me what debates look like under their model.

I tend to abide by 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 so long as they are well-substantiated. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I generally default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policymaker.

Theory: I think condo can be good, but can be convinced otherwise if there is in round abuse. I will probably reject the argument and not the team, unless given a good reason to. PIKs/PICs are fine, but I will probably favor a reasonable perm explanation.

Ks: I'm familiar with critical literature. I'm less familiar with high theory than I am with traditional Ks (Neolib/Cap, Security, etc), identity-based Ks, and other structuralism Ks. I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. I'm generally not convinced by a link of omission.

I deeply respect the hustle of a 2/3 card K, but you better flesh it out well enough in the block if it will be in the 2NR. Please tell me what the world of the alt looks like!!! Ks function like vague DAs to me, but with an alt that usually makes no sense. If you don't want to put in the work to articulate an alternative, commit to the bit & run your K like a DA (with some FW on why that should be legit).

DAs: Do whatever you want, just please read all parts of the DA or you will lose this argument (unx, link, intl, impact). Note: impact preferences above in point 4.

CP: Most CPs on this topic are not competitive. Just ~please~ have a net benefit. Multiple planks are almost always abusive.

Stock Issues: Inherency is a part of the affs burden of proof and definitely a voter. More people should exploit that.

Performance: I'm down for it! Very cool when done well. You need theory to back yourself up. Explain everything very in-depth and clearly articulate why it matters more than the topic, FW, and/or T.