I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.

I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative. For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts a larger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.

This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.

I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.

Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.

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

I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.

Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
30=Perfect speech
27.5=Average
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior

If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at kicktosscatch@gmail.com

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

• Rosemount High School (1985-1989)

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

• Committee to develop the Novice Packet in Minnesota

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

Top Shelf:

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

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

Other thoughts...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am also a fan of debaters being good human beings. Being kind, polite and remembering that we are all humans goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were inexperienced at one point, as well. Additionally, I believe people should be consistent, both in terms of their arguments and, in the world of the K, in their advocacy. Post-Rounding me is also not cool. My decision is my decision and that will be your privilege when you are a judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email for chains: elysecolihan@gmail.com. Feel free to email as well if you have any questions.

Update: talking fast is fine by me, but a lot of spreading I've heard recently has been REALLY difficult to understand, PLEASE slow down if you can. If I miss arguments because I can't understand you, I can't flow them or weigh them when judging. PLEASE SLOW DOWN! PLEASE BE EXTRA CLEAR!

Hi all! I did 2 years of LD and 2 years of policy in high school (so I generally judge both), graduated 2019, and have been judging regularly during the debate season since then. I graduated recently from DePaul University in Chicago.

Basic things: generally fine with whatever round you want to have as long as both teams agree. Ok with tag-teaming, flex prep, sitting down or standing, spreading or not spreading. I am not super strict on debate formalities and will only judge you on the substance of the debate (and if you are mean to your opponent - that will hurt you!). Include me on the chain or don’t, I don’t mind either way.

The most important thing to know is I would prefer to hear whatever case you ENJOY running and are comfortable with. Though I love weird and interesting cases, if you would rather run a stock arg, I have no issue voting for you! Unless an argument is egregiously overtly offensive, I will vote for it if you win it. I am not a judge that will automatically throw out any type of argument regardless of my own feelings about it.

Don’t be mean or talk over your opponent (policy: this includes discussing with your partner during opponent speeches, please don’t do that, pass notes if you must). Explain your arguments well (don’t just read cards, explain how they work together to make a point). I LOVE a well done summary of the round, at the end of every speech if you have time, but most critically in final speeches. Slow down for tags and signposting.

More specific stuff:

I’m pretty familiar with common philosophy cases in debate and should be able to keep up just fine. I love a good K debate, and even more, I love a good weird case debate (I loved running biopower, wipeout, and timecube in high school). If you go this route, you still have to fully explain and develop your arguments even if you assume I’m familiar with it. Also, PLEASE don’t neglect framing and PLEASE tie your framing into EVERYTHING if you are doing a K debate. Lastly, if an argument hinges on your opponent's identities (race, gender, class, etc) alone, I would just rather you not run it. "They are __ so they can't __" is not a good argument for me.

I don’t like tricky cases. If you win, you win, but it’s much more enjoyable for all of us if you win on substance rather than cheap tricks. As such, topicality and abuse claims are fine with me when warranted. They MUST BE IN A SHELL, you can’t just make a quick abuse claim without explaining and move on. Though I don’t like silly abuse cases, if I’m hearing a really pointed a priori or try or die that completely obliterates opponent ground, it definitely makes me a little sad when someone doesn’t call it out as abusive. So go for it if you must! I support you!

I do think there is a big difference between policy and LD (outside of partners) and do think “we are in X type of debate not Y” is a valid argument sometimes.

In the interest of accessibility in debate, please err on the side of over explaining. It’s so easy to get caught up in debate jargon, and I often see novices competing at higher levels for the first time PANIC when this happens. If you are using debate terms (i.e. PIC, RVI, LAW, condo, etc.) please briefly explain them. If you hear something you don’t understand, never be afraid to ask (I am good with flex prep for this reason), and if someone asks you BE KIND! Everyone is at a different level and debate should always be an educational activity first and foremost.

Last thing: if you are a novice debating for the first time or competing at a higher level for the first time, please don’t panic! We have all been there (and as judges, seen it a million times), we have all looked silly and nervous and lost in rounds before, it’s a part of the process! Just know I understand, I’m not judging you for it, and I’m excited to see you learn and thrive. You got this! If you are at a higher level going against a novice, PLEASE BE NICE AND ENCOURAGING! I have seen these types of rounds go awry too many times. EVERYONE BE NICE!

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.

she/her

please add jfrese016@gmail.com to the email chain

I am a coach at Washburn Highschool where I have been working since 2021.

I debater for a total of 6 years before I decided to stop debating. 4 were in high school at Glenbrook South and 2 at the University of Minnesota. I have qualified for the TOC once and the NDT twice

updated for Blake

TLDR

I don't really have much to say in this paradigm I have previously had long paradigms that explained my view of each argument, but, I dont think that provided anything useful because the way you debate is a stylistic choice and I don't think judges should have a preference on what styles they vote for. It is my job as a judge to evaluate the flow and vote for which ever team I think wins the round. I will vote for any argument (excluding arguments that make the debate space harmful as I won't ignore my role is as an educator).

Ks--i really like these they are useful education that should be discussed in the debate space. I will vote on framework because I think the debate about framework is a useful conversation to have (how should our engagement with debate operate is a useful question and one that I really like).

Policy--this is the style i debated. i really like these I don't know if there is much more to say. I mean DAs, Ts, CPs, Turns, all are good.

Condo--I think that condo is fine but Ill vote for condo bad even against 1 condo if you win it.

If u want to read my full views of debate they are here

My experience is one mainly as debating policy, however, my more recent experience coaching have left me more focused on critical arguments, mainly the cap k and set col while also adding in a role as an educator inside of the space. I don't think that it should be up to the judges to determine the stylistic decisions they vote on it should be the argumentation. That said I won't vote for arguments that make the debate space harmful.

Kritiks

I typically think of kritiks as coming in a couple forms. One that focuses a criticism on the framework of debate or one that focuses more on an alternative. These are both very strong and I understand the strategic choice of keeping routes open, but, by the end of the debate I think that having the time to spend constructing a specific route is more sucessful than trying to keep all options open. It is much more persuasive if all the arguments you chose to go for use a similar foundation. This is extremely useful because if you spent so much time winning framework it will make certain case arguments, certain links better.

If you are debating against a kritik what helped me was trying to identify the route the neg's k takes and having a plan for each of these avenues. I think it really depends on the aff, but there are a few strategies against Ks. By strategies I mean what is the focus of the 2ar win on, because you should still have everything covered as much as it needs to.

-Perm, no-link--it is important to have a net benefit to the perm which can be alt fails, cede the ptx, the advantage, ect.

-Framework, extinction outweighs, alt fails--it is important to think through the implication of you winning framework. There are some Ks where they will just lose while other Ks have strong alts and impacts.

CPs

I am a fan of CPs. I don’t really have any leaning way I believe. I think theory typically isn’t the best strategy not because I won’t vote on it but unless the CP is really cheating then it typically is just easier for the neg to defend theory.

This is where I spent a lot of my time in debate doing coming up with cps.

DAs

I love DAs. The bad ones the good ones whatever da you want. I feel like this isn’t controversial.

T

I am a very good judge for T if you are ready on the tech level. I will peetty easially pull the trigger on less viable T violations if you are just ahead. I really like the focus being put on the implications of how debate would work.

This is also where I spent most of my time debating

He/Him

Minneapolis South/Occasional judging for Minnesota

My email is izakgm [at] gmail.com, add me to the email chain before the round, please and thank you.

Good debating overwhelms anything else on here. I've coached and judged teams of all styles. I will try my best to evaluate the round on your terms and not my own.

do whatever you gotta do for your internet quality. I'd like camera on but if you can't, you can't, and I won't hold it against you and you don't need to explain to me.

IN PERSON DEBATE IS BACK and its time to shed our eDebate norms like "not saying the words that are in the card text while we spread". I will most certainly let you know I'm not getting it. Teams that spread clearly: I see you, I hear you, I honor you, and I am here with you!

How I judge - big picture > minutia.

I appreciate explicit impact comparison, judge instruction, and when the 2nr/2ar starts in a place that helps me resolve the rest of the debate. I don't mean "they dropped my role of the ballot!!!!!!". If you say "extinction outweighs" but don't tell me what it outweighs, I'll just assume you mean its important since you haven't made a comparative claim.

I'm flow centered, but not a fan of cheap shots or punishing small mistakes. I'm not a perfect flow. In fact I am certainly one of the worst flowers on the circuit and yet I use my flow to decide the round. If you want me to evaluate your argument its on you to make sure I write it down. Late breaking and unforeseeable arguments may justify new responses. I do have 2n sympathyTM and will check the 2ar against arguments that weren't in the 1ar. 2nr line drawing or instruction remains helpful.

I think in terms of risks, including zero risk and presumption. Offense/defense works well a lot of the time, but I'm not a cultist. If internal links are missing and the other team points it out without reply, I'm not giving you 1% just for fun.

I think I used to be harder on the 1ar and 2nr. Now I give a bit more leeway if there was sufficient explanation earlier in the debate. I pay close attention to and often flow cross-x if its going somewhere.

I read less evidence than many judges at the end of the round. If your superior evidence quality is not explained, I might miss it. I will not reconstruct the round through the docs afterwards. I won't read along unless I suspect clipping. If you deliver the text of your evidence incomprehensibly fast I will not read the text of it later to figure out what you said. Again, the burden of communication is on you.

I love strategic concessions and rehighlightings. If you are right and you read it in the speech, I will prioritize your analysis. It makes sense to insert things like charts. If its "a stake the round on it" kind of issue, please do not insert a rehighlighting, I need you read it. If its just an FYI about a tertiary issue... go off I guess.

I'm expressive and might intervene vocally to move you off a stale cx direction or motion to move on if you are repeating yourself in the speech. It will be pretty obvious in person if I have stopped flowing because I don't understand what you are saying. My resting face is rather stern, don't take it personally. I'm probably still vibing with you.

FW v K aff - Yes, I will vote either way. It comes down to links and impacts like any other debate and the best teams in these rounds have offense and defense.

Neg teams: I'll be honest, if you say debate is a game more than twice my eyes start to glaze over. Fairness can be an impact but it usually feels like a small one. By this I mean if the aff wins any impact at all it will be more important to me than fairness. If that's your approach you'll need to be playing great defense (lots of ways to do this) or really filtering out aff offense somehow. I say this and yet I think fairness/clash is by far the most strategic version of this argument. Y'all think I didn't notice you just ctrl-f'd your fairness blocks with clash? Ignoring the questions posed by the aff or repeatedly mischaracterizing the aff's claims will likely result in an aff ballot.

Aff teams: I'm open to whatever approach you want to take. I'm personally more interested in strategies built around a counter interpretation even if its not an intuitive (or predictable) one, will vote for impact turns alone and in many cases that is more strategic. Just FYI, I do not know what the symbolic economy is, so if you are the first one to explain it to me then kudos. I think I just learned what a psychoanalytic drive is last month but I still might not understand it. If the TVA is something I'm thinking about during my decision time, even if you dropped it, then you've written or explained your aff poorly. If your model doesn't explain a role for negation, or your aff is so uncontroversial that it doesn't hold up to a basic inherency push, I can see myself voting neg easily.

Ks on the neg - Love these debates. Explanation is vital on both sides. Aff teams that explain their internal links and solvency have the most success against ks in front of me. Aff framework arguments that exclude kritiks entirely will be a tough sell. If the alt is cheating, you can point that out tho ;) I've yet to hear a persuasive explanation for judge choice - I will only vote on benefits of your plan that you explain. Neg teams do well with strong links that implicate the case. You don't always need an alt in the 2nr, but you might be better off defending an imperfect alt instead of just the squo, especially if the 2ar is on to you. Perms are a valuable tool but 90% of aff wins would be on case outweighs whether the perm was present or not.

Policy stuff - Yes. I like internal link and solvency presses. Impact defense can make sense, but "x doesn't cause extinction" might not get your there if the other team has a nuanced impact comparison. I have a loose attachment to the "link first" camp until you tell me otherwise. My time in Minnesota has left me with a love for impact turns, don't care how dumb it seems. If you can't beat stupid... I don't know what to tell you.

I struggled with Judge Kick for a while. I've come around. I still enjoy strategic and narrow 2nrs (i.e. not making me do this). If you explicitly (saying "squo is always an option" in 1nc cx counts) flag this as an option by the end of the block I'm game. I am open to affs that ask me to stick the 2nr to the cp.

Complicated Perm texts can be explained and inserted - they should be written out fully and sent for all to see. Counterplan texts that you don't want to read fully.... No thank you. Be more creative with how its written.

Things it might be helpful to know about me/carrots+sticks/hot takes inspired by OTT

• i understand why no one does this but if the aff team took a stance on something (like an actual explanation of how they solve not solely hedging against agent cps) and the neg fiats through a solvency deficit based in literature and the aff went for theory I might be more likely to vote aff than most. This obviously goes out the window if the aff says the phrase "for the purpose of counterplan competition" at any point in cx.
• some bonus speaker points (maybe .2?) if your neg strategy (policy or k) hinges on tech and not nato. Feels like there is room for das/impact turns in this area and I would like to see them.
• If your wiki is sparse your points are capped at 28.5 - its JV behavior, you get JV points.
• If you can't answer basic CX questions about a position you are asking for an L 27. If you think the round is over and you stop your rebuttal VERY early because you have already won (invoke a TKO correctly), the baseline for your points is 29.5.
• I'm lukewarm for plan text in a vacuum. "Only non-arbitrary" blah blah blzh both teams should just debate about what the aff does. I will require some extra convincing before the 2ar and will heavily protect the 2nr here.
• truly random defaults that have come up more than once in rounds that I want on the record: perms are tests of competition so I will jettison them if they would hurt the aff. you can implicitly answer a "ballot pic" by trying to win the round.

If you still have questions, please feel free to email or ask me before the round!

Old water topic thoughts archive

- Glad I didn't judge enough on this topic to have thoughts. We only heard extinction affs all year because of the bizcon da? Now that's what I call cowardice. Excited for NATO!

Old CJR thoughts archive

- learning about the criminal justice system is nice. If you teach me something about the topic (yes critical knowledge is part of the topic get over yourself) over the course of the debate, boost to your points. If your aff is about cyberattacks strike me, I simply don't care. If your aff is about cyberattacks and you debate the internal link level well enough to convince me that you were actually talking about criminal justice reform,

- i have some professional experience working on police reform. I live in Minneapolis and South high is blocks from where the 3rd precinct burned. My personal belief is ACAB. I feel familiar with many of the practical arguments for and against abolition, so I have a high threshold for link debating. aff teams, feel free to go for "abolition bad" instead of the perm...

- I'd love to be a judge that fully resolved framing first before substance. Unfortunately the quality of debating here is often such that I have to resolve some substance to figure out what to do.

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

Background and Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

Judging Approach

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

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

Positions and Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substantive Things You Should Do

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

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

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

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

Stylistic In-Round Things You Should Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out-of-Round Things You Should Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare Things That Impress Me When Done Well

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

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

– Demonstrating strong familiarity with your and your opponents' evidence

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

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

– Using common sense to help beat blatantly untrue arguments

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

Evidence and Extensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important Point

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

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

Lincoln–Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Please do not attempt to shake my hand.

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

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

Please put me on the email chain it's my first name and last name @gmail.com

Debated for four years at Washburn in Minneapolis. Coached Field Middle School for three years and Minneapolis South for one year.

The most important thing to me is clear and intentional big-picture strategy. Thoroughly explain the most important arguments to the round and explicitly say what you’re winning, how that interacts with the other teams arguments, and how it implicates my decision.

Take the time to thoroughly explain link chains and impacts at the end of the debate. Lately I’ve found myself setting a higher bar for a complete argument and not evaluating scenarios that fall short.

Slow down on persuasive/important arguments, it will boost your speaker points a lot.

I’ve gone for and voted for lots of different arguments so do your thing.

Always disclose your aff (if it's been read before by you or anyone else on the team) as soon as possible and have cites ready if asked for.

Have fun!

influential educators: syd huntimer, rose larson, spencer anderson mcelligott, ryan davis, kacee wells, danielle schmitt, ryan cavanaugh, nolan johnson, lily guizat

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

MSHSL State and Sections 2022 Update

I have been mostly out of debate since graduating in 2018, with some intermittent judging here and there. As such, I don't have many strong argumentative preferences anymore and am willing to listen to whatever you have to say, so long as it is not hateful or violent. I still consider myself fairly competent in terms of my understanding of the mechanics of debate, but please slow down slightly, be clear, and explain topic-specific terms and concepts as much as you can. Thank you!

**Pre-2022 Paradigm**

About me

I debated at Minneapolis Washburn High School for four years. During my time there, I traveled regularly and had some success on the national circuit. I’m now attending UW Madison. I worked at a week-long debate camp this summer and am still somewhat involved with Minneapolis Washburn, so I have the bare minimum of basic knowledge about the 2018-19 topic, but please explain your acronyms and topic-specific phrases!

I went for arguments on every side of the spectrum in high school, and I’ve always been a 2N. I have no argumentative predispositions and will happily listen to anything you want to have a debate about. That being said, my favorite debates are debates over topic-specific Ks, case specific disads and tricky counterplans, and robust case debates. Tech over truth, but within reason, meaning I won’t vote for arguments that are offensive or violent.

Add me to the email chain! My email is gklage@gmail.com. Feel free to email me with questions as well!

Affirmatives

Plan, no plan, whatever – I’ll listen to anything as long as you’re willing to defend it. I read a K aff for most of high school and then switched to exclusively policy affs my senior year. I think policy affs get away with murder when it comes to case debating and often spend far too little time answering case arguments. I think I’m a good judge for presumption and think there’s nothing quite as threatening as deeply developed negative case takeouts, especially when the aff tries to wish them away in under 30 seconds in the 2AC. For the aff, I’m extremely impressed by people who read well-researched, unique affirmatives and can demonstrate their knowledge of their aff in the way they debate the case. I enjoy policy affs more when they have one or two impact scenarios and an actual description of their solvency mechanism, rather than having a bunch of scenarios with very little explanation of how the aff solves them.

For K affs, I think you have to defend some method and it should be related to the resolution. What that means is up for debate! I think a lot of K affs, especially those of the more postmodern variety, often just wait until the 1NC has happened to generate offense – this is really frustrating, because it’s often hard to pin down what these affs exactly do. If I don’t know what your aff does, I’ll be less inclined to vote for you and far more sympathetic to framework arguments.

Disads

I think zero risk is real. The more contrived your internal link chain is, the more I’ll believe this. Despite this, I actually kind of enjoy the politics disad and don’t think intrinsicness arguments are particularly convincing. Disads that emphasize turns case arguments are awesome. I wish more people went for disads and case – I’m perfectly fine voting on a disad regardless of whether it’s net beneficial to a counterplan, especially if you significantly reduce the risk of the case. Impact comparison is everything, and the earlier in the debate you can start it, the better.

Counterplans

I think I have a slightly higher bar for theoretical illegitimacy when it comes to “cheating” counterplans. I love process counterplans, but I’m also sympathetic to the limited range of arguments the affirmative has to respond with. I understand the need to go for theory versus counterplans like these, but if you go for theory I’d still like to hear clash over it. I’m pretty neutral on questions of agents, 50 state and international fiat, etc. – I could be persuaded in pretty much any direction on theory, but I do definitively think the neg gets fiat. I won’t judge kick the counterplan for you – I think it’s pretty abusive and you should just pick a world and stick with it. Tricky perms are fun – but make sure to distinguish between which perm you're going for/answering, especially versus counterplans.

Kritiks

I love kritiks and a large chunk of my 2NRs in high school were the K. The Ks I went for most often were neolib, queer pessimism, and critical geopolitics (lol). Links about the action of the plan are better than general links about the affirmative’s impacts, rhetoric, or the system the aff exists within. Alts are helpful but not necessary – kick them if you want to but make sure the links wholly disprove that the aff is a good idea. Framework is a helpful tool to filter which links I evaluate, but doesn’t wish away entire Ks. The neg can use framework to reduce the chances of the aff outweighing the K. I think the aff probably always gets a perm, but could be convinced otherwise if there was explanation beyond saying “this is a method debate”. Ks versus K affs still need a link, preferably specific to the aff – root cause isn’t a link.

Framework

Both sides of the framework debate are enjoyable to me, and while I love hearing a good K aff, I’m also pretty sympathetic to negative framework arguments. I think the best way for the neg to win a framework debate is to go for a more procedural impact like fairness or limits and isolate clear examples of the way the aff makes debate considerably harder, while making smart case arguments that mitigate the risk that the aff’s education is good for debate. Contextualization goes very far in these debates. For the aff, I think the best way to win is to prove that your aff is contestable, even under the negative’s parameters, and to actually defend your counter interpretation as a model of debate. If you want more thoughts on this, I really agree with Brian Rubaie’s philosophy on framework.

Please don’t be rude or unkind when you go for framework (or any argument, but I find that this is especially a thing in framework debates).

Topicality

I do enjoy debates about non-framework T, but I’m not very well versed in the high school topic and you may have to do some additional explanation to make T arguments clear to me. The more ridiculous your interpretation is, the easier it’ll be for me to buy reasonability arguments from the aff. I don’t know which affs are “core affs” and probably won’t know most of your acronyms – please clarify things like these for my sake!

Other stuff

I'm not a fan of yelling, being rude to your opponents and partner, Pocketbox, ethics violations like stealing prep and clipping, Antonio 95 or the fiat double bind, or talking down to your opponents in cross ex. I like it when people are funny and have personality in cross ex, but I think it's a fine line between being entertaining and being snarky, and the latter will definitely hurt your speaker points. I don't think I should have to read evidence at the end of a round if you're doing the work to contextualize it but I'm not opposed to it if need be. I'm probably not a great judge for any theory in the vein of Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. My idea of average speaker points is ~28.3. Internal links are underrated, and I like it when debaters prioritize explaining their internal links just as much as they do their terminal impacts.

sabrinatheythem@gmail.com

I strongly prefer for all documents to be sent out as word files and not as PDFs.

Personal Background

I dig holes for a living! I work for a landscaping firm called Metro Blooms planting pollinator gardens in Minneapolis and the surrounding area. When I'm not digging in the dirt or coaching debate I am playing softball in the Twin Cities G(ay)oodtime Softball League, or football in the Minnesota Gay Flag Football League. I majored in Political Science and Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.

I was a policy debater at the University of Minnesota from 2016-2020. In the past I have been a UDL coach for Roosevelt and Highland Park, and I am currently coaching at Wash Tech. I started debating in college in the Novice division, and went on to debate in JV and Open. Because I did not debate in high school, my general expectations as a judge come from the norms of collegiate policy debate.

Conduct in the Round

Punctuality - My preference is for the 1AC to be standing up and ready to speak at the start time of the round. That means that 10 minutes before the start time, you already started an email chain and sent the affirmative out to everyone in the round. I have had to decide debates before the final rebuttals due to tardiness, and I want you all to have the opportunity to finish the debate and ask questions.

CX - I do not appreciate tag team cross ex. If you jump in to ask or answer a cross ex question before your partner even opens their mouth, I will not be happy. If you have a specific question you would like your debate partner to ask, it is best practice to take prep time before cross ex to communicate that to them. This has the added benefit of freeing up 3:00 additional minutes of prep time for you.

Prep - If you are talking to your debate partner about the round, that always counts as taking prep. If you are standing up there taking too long to email the doc, I am suspicious of you. Be as prompt as possible after stopping your prep time to avoid suspicion.

Speaking - Speaking fast is ok but if you are failing to pronounce your words I will not be happy and I will let you know. If what you are saying in the speech does not reflect what is highlighted in your cards, I will know and I will ask you to send a document reflecting the cards that you actually read.

How to Win

Choose your strongest position in the 2NR/2AR (or earlier), and spend 5 minutes explaining the timeframe, probability, and magnitude of your strongest impact, compare/contrast your impact with your opponent's impact(s), and tell me why the plan does or does not solve for those impacts. If you bring more than one advantage into the 2AR, or more than one DA/K/CP+NB into the 2NR, I will be sad!

I care more about the technical execution of your argument than the specific content of it. Debates are often won and lost on dropped arguments. When extending arguments, simply repeating the author's name is not enough. In order for me to consider the argument extended into the speech, you must always explain the warrant from the evidence you wish to extend. Avoid reading new cards in the 2NC/2AC if those warrants already exist in the 1NC/1AC.

Do your best to answer your opponent's arguments line by line down the flow.

Speaker Points

I don't put much thought into evaluating this. It ends up being a rough relative ranking of all the speakers in the round, so if I think that you have a more or less polished style of debating than your opponents or your debate partner, it will be reflected in your speaker points. This part of the ballot is odd to me.

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

email:

johnxkrueger@gmail.com

Background: I did extemp and policy in high school, I did extemp in college, I am currently a law student. I ran more pragmatic arguments in high school. That being said, I haven't heard fast spreading in a long time, so please be as clear as possible, especially online. If you cannot be clear then please speak slower.

Affs: I am fine with critical affs, but you need to defend topicality, solvency, etc. you need to be crystal clear about what you are doing and what is happening.

Negs: I'm fine with k's, but cover your bases. I am not well read into critical theory, so if you are obscure theory or a complicated take on theory, explain it like you are talking to a five year old. I will vote neg on presumption, but the burden flips if negative runs a counteradvocacy.

Topicality: I love it. Run more T. Run jurisdiction T. Make sure your shell works, but run T

Theory: sure.

Any questions, feel free to email: aaronlutz3939@gmail.com

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - chris.mcdonald@district196.org

Use the above email for any email chains during the round.

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 37 years I do judge my fair share of LD, Public Forum and Congressional Debate Rounds.

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 10 seconds to find the card, you can use your prep time locating it or the argument will become unsupported by evidence.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase. If you do paraphrase your evidence must comport with current NSDA rules concerning how paraphrasing works in line with MLA standards.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams, so I should be fairly up to date on key arguments on the current on topic.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of the topic or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round or isn't debating the resolution we are supposed to be considering at that given tournament. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear especially considering buffering time with online platforms you should probably slow down from what you think you are capable of during in-person debates.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at chris.mcdonald@district196.org

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

Public Forum

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing. Please make note of the new NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard '23 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time, unless otherwise stated by the tournament you are attending. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

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.

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.

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:

Rosemount High School (MN)

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

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

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

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

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

--

Yes, email chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Some details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Older Profile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

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

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD