Brief Background:

Original “Ted Turner” debater, now known as Public Forum Debate. Mainly a Lincoln-Douglas and World Schools judge, but judge all speech and debate events. Currently community judge for Stevens High School, in Rapid City, SD.

General:

+Time yourselves, I will verify if needed.
+Keep the debate flowing, any downtime or off-time road maps more than 10 seconds should be considered prep-time.
+Speed is fine as long as it does not detract from clarity and connection.
+Keep it civil and professional, there exists a line between assertiveness and contempt for decorum.
+Do not rely on esoteric counter plans or kritiks/critiques, while they can be used appropriately, make sure your own case is sound.

LD Debate:

From its roots in the 1858 Senate Race between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate style is one of adversarial nature. As a Lincoln-Douglass Debate judge I am a purist; focused on logic, ethical values, and clear philosophy. Ultimately, all jargon and style aside, it is your duty to persuade the judge to accept your interpretation of the resolution using: Analysis, Argumentation, and Presentation.

Keep in mind the roots of this debate style, your job is to persuade the judge to your side. This relies heavily on your ability to be a good communicator. Do you connect with your audience? Is your argumentation sound and organized? Is your analysis clear and connected? Present your side however you see fit, I will follow.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is meant to be a more accessible debate format. Keeping true to its foundation you must appeal to your audience through reason, organization, evidence, and delivery. This is a public debate style meant to reach a wide audience. Quality raises over quantity in Public Forum Debate.

Extemporaneous Speaking (And Most Speech Events):

Argumentation, Analysis, Evidence, Delivery. These are my core focuses when judging. First and foremost this is a speech event, make sure to command the room and focus on the fundamentals of speech. The argumentation must be on-topic and the analysis needs to lead to a clear understanding of the topic. Sources should be diverse and naturally sewn into the flow of the speech. Your stance on the topic does not affect my decision, I support all ideas. Be organized and bring your audience along with you.

World Schools

Content, Style, Strategy. It is as simple and as difficult as those three areas. I appreciate that World Schools emphasizes the need for quality style. For years I have argued that if your content and strategy do not connect with the audience, they fall on deaf ears. Content should have sound analysis and logical attachment. True engagement is a key in WS. Take and give those POIs! Otherwise it becomes a dry debate, just reading speeches. Drive the debate and truly listen to each other. Focus on specific issues rather than debate theory or procedural arguments. Did I mention engage? Engage!

Lincoln Douglas

• off-the-clock roadmaps are preferable to on-time roadmaps, just make them brief.
• Ask for your own prep-time, always offered in 30 second intervals.
• Assume the judges can follow along, only ask if your opponent is ready prior to speaking.
• Ideal debater is killer but cordial. Be polite but go for the throat, make sense?
• Keep arguing framework and criterion, do not drop them. Heavy consideration is given there from me.

• Key to decipher ballots: A1a is Aff Cont.1, subpoint a. RA1a is the Neg response to Aff Cont.1, subpoint a.

I'm an assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in the interps and speech after having competed for Huron in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round, and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to promote the piece).

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater.

Updated 1-2024

Please feel free to include me on any email chains or share evidence that you want reviewed via Eric@dakotahomestead.com

Background

I am a former policy debater who has coached and judged all forms of debate and speech since 2005. I am a volunteer assistant coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls with my focus shifting to coaching Public Forum debate as of 2020-2021. In my day-job, I am an attorney and the president of an insurance holding company that oversees a variety of real estate focused businesses throughout South Dakota.

Public Forum

Similar to Policy and LD, I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, including crossfire and overviews. Rate of delivery is not an issue for me as long as you are relatively clear and understandable. I evaluate Public Forum as a Tabula Rasa judge and consider the arguments focused on by each side in the Final Focus to be the main arguments to evaluate in the round. Absent framing or a weighing mechanism proposed by either side, I default to a policy making analysis from the perspective of the actor in the resolution. Tell me why you should win based on the arguments on the flow from the round and how to evaluate them. Winning on individual arguments without guidance as to why that argument matters in the context of the resolution is a common problem I see. I prefer clash between teams on key issues compared to each side repeating their own claims without addressing the other team's.

While I primarily coach Public Forum and am familiar with the evidence and arguments on the current topic, do not assume that all participants in the round are and debate accordingly. On most judge panels, you should focus on the paradigms and preferences of the other judges as I will go along for the ride rather than advancing an argument or rate of delivery that I find acceptable at the potential expense of the round. With that said, just like with Policy and LD, I believe that the round is up to the debaters, so tell me why something matters and why you win, and I will evaluate it accordingly.

Lincoln Douglas

Prior South Dakota State Debate Lincoln Douglas Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your Lincoln-Douglas judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate: (Mark “X” on all that apply)

X A. Coach of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

B. Former Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach

C. Former Lincoln-Douglas Competitor

X D. Former collegiate and/or high school policy debater

X E. Frequently judge Lincoln-Douglas debate

X F. Coach of Policy Debate

X G. Coach of Individual Events

H. No Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience

2. I have judged 18 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

3. I have judged: (circle or highlight one)

Typically between 15 and 30rounds of L-D by the end of the season

4. Indicate your attitudes concerning the following typical L-D practices:

A. RATE OF DELIVERY (circle/highlight your answers)

No preference | Slow, conversational style | Typical conversational speed | Rapid conversational style

1. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? Yes No

2. Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? Yes No

B. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CRITERION IN MAKING YOUR DECISION? (circle/highlight one)

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. (unless advocated otherwise during the round)

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes No

C. REBUTTALS AND CRYSTALLIZATION (circle/highlight one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include: a) voting issues b) line-by-line analysis c) both (I default and usually prefer voting issues, but it is your round so you tell me what you think is important in determining a winner)

2. Voting issues should be given:

a) as the student moves down the flow b) at the end of the final speech c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are: a) absolutely necessary b) not necessary (strongly preferred but not required).

4. The use of jargon or technical language (“extend,” “cross-apply,” “turn,” etc) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable b) unacceptable c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How Do You Decide The Winner Of The Round? (circle/highlight the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

(Circle/highlight your preference)

Not necessary----------Sometimes necessary----------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Circle/highlight the option that best describes your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater’s case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

Policy Debate

2017 South Dakota State Debate Policy Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

Your experience with policy debate (Mark all that apply with “X”):

X A. Coach of a policy debate team

______ B. Former policy debate coach

C. Policy debater in college (Where? )

X D. Policy debater in high school

X E. Frequently judge policy debate

______ F. Occasionally judge policy debate

Which of the following best describes your approach to judging policy debate?

A. Speaking Skill D. Hypothesis Tester

B. Stock Issues E. Games Player

C. Policymaker X F. Tabula Rasa

Circle (or highlight) your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

RATE OF DELIVERY (X No Preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Rapid

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS (X No Preference)

A few well-developed arguments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments

the better

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive issues

most important most important

TOPICALITY – I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely vote on topicality

COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

OPTIONAL: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses to items 3-12, write those comments LEGIBLY on a separate sheet of paper.

Eric Hanson’s Additional Comments

I truly believe that each round is the debaters to do with what they want. Evan so, here are my preferences and some common criticisms I have for teams:

When running theory and Kritik’s, just prove to me you understand them and how they apply in this round. Do not just read a shell that someone else has prepared without understanding the underlying criticism that is being levied.

Please write out Counter Plan and Perm text.

I have a very expansive view on Topicality. I will listen to and vote on in round abuse, potential abuse, and competing interpretations. That does not mean that I vote on potential abuse or competing interpretations just because you say those words. You must actual prove to me that your definition is the best one for debating the resolution or that the other team’s is just so flawed and abusive that it cannot stand.

When extending warrants, it is preferable to say more than just “Extend my partners warrants.” Take the extra few seconds to actually state the warrant of the argument.

When considering impact calculus, I give weight to all three parts (timeframe, probability, and magnitude). If a team tells me to give little weight to a massive DA impact because the probability is so small, that will factor into my evaluation.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

As a Tabula Rasa judge, I really appreciate it when the 2NR / 2AR actually explain why the win the round and in what framework / paradigm I am supposed to view the round when evaluating.

You probably do not want me to guess at how you wanted me to evaluate the round.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

I am a former South Dakota debater who competed in PFo, oratory, and interp. I’m now the head debate coach at Mitchell High School. I’m a traditional Public Forumer; this event was created for lay judges and heavy Public Forum jargon should be left to the side.

- This isn’t policy. Slow down and give me a quality delivery for higher speaks. Throwing delivery by the wayside for a fast and robotic presentation is a massive mistake so many debaters commit. I’m an Aristotle girlie - persuade me with your ethos, logos, and pathos!

- I'll be closely following the arguments presented, and if you believe there's a pivotal point crucial for winning the round, please ensure to address it in one of your subsequent speeches.

- Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card.

- Direct quotes > Paraphrasing. I won't immediately downvote you for paraphrasing, but if your debate opponent can provide a compelling reason, I might reconsider. The same principle applies to the misuse of evidence. If your opponent requests a card citation, and it contradicts your argument or the way you presented it, it could be deemed abusive, potentially leading to a loss in the round.

- Creativity in arguments is encouraged, as long as you have the link chain to back it up. Using abusively creative arguments is not my favorite (ie., student loan debt forgiveness will lead to nuclear war.)

- Weighing metrics are SO IMPORTANT! Even if it seems obvious to you, lay it all out for me so you ensure it gets weighed how you see fit.

- Summaries should not be utilized as second rebuttals; use your summary for voters and to tell me why I’m preferring you on each flowed contention.

- Be assertive, not aggressive! I’m such a firm believer of “If you have to be mean to get your point across, you’re a bad debater.” Aggressiveness will cost you speaker points.

- I have come to despise off-the-clock roadmaps and asking if every individual in the round is ready; you can begin and we’ll catch up.

- Telling me what I’m going to be voting is such a pet peeve of mine. Tell me what to weigh, what to prefer, what to analyze, what to flow through - do NOT tell me what I’m going to vote. :)

Hello! I'm a first-year assistant coach, former debater, and flay judge from South Dakota. I did LD, IX, and CD in high school but am focusing on PF and USX/IX as a coach. The LD and PF sections below are geared towards traditional-style rounds of each event, because that is the style I encounter most often, I am most familiar with, and regarding which I can more accurately describe my paradigm. However, I am open to non-traditional styles, arguments, and approaches as long as you can make sure I know where you're going throughout, without the aid of excessive speed. (To wit, I am (in)famously the judge who voted on disclosure theory at Cavalier Invite.) Please feel free to ask before the round if you have any questions.

LD

I'm most familiar with traditional-style LD. Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, this is how I evaluate all such rounds.

1. Which value better satisfies the moral obligation of the resolution?
2. Which criterion better achieves the chosen value in (1)?
3. Whose contention-level arguments better meet the chosen criterion in (2)?

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is having strong links. For both your sake and mine, please explicitly link your value to the resolution's moral obligation, your criterion to both your and your opponent's values, and your contentions to both your and your opponent's criteria; even if the links are obvious, I can't consider those links unless you're the one making them.If you're planning your 1NR or 2AR, consider walking me through the RFD (by explaining how following that three-step link chain should lead to a ballot for you) and giving me multiple paths to the ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Finally, as a note for those who may not be as familiar with traditional-style frameworks: morality is not in and of itself a moral value, and concepts like equality, fairness, justice, freedom, or the like are values, not criteria. No one in an LD round should be disputing that morality is good, but which moral value ought we prioritize when multiple values conflict, as they almost inevitably will when debating the resolution? And the criterion can't be an abstract concept; that's what your value should be. Instead, the criterion is the yardstick I can use to measure who's meeting the value better. If the value debate is between an actual value and "morality," or if the criterion debate is between a measurable criterion and an abstract value, my decision on which framework to adopt for the round will be fairly easy.

PF

Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, I default to impact-weighing in PF. In such rounds, I analyze each contention independently, and I ask myself if either team still has offense on that contention by the end of the round. After examining every contention on my flow: if only one team has offense, that team wins; if both teams have offense, I weigh the impacts of that offense; and if neither team has offense, I shed a single tear and try my best to figure out who was closest to having any.

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is impact-weighing. For both your sake and mine, please don't assume your impacts are more powerful than your opponents'; tell me not only why you get to your impacts and your opponents don't get to theirs, but give me reasons to prefer your impacts over your opponents'. If you're planning your final focus, consider walking me through the RFD (by very clearly explaining why you have offense and why your offense outweighs theirs) and giving me multiple independent paths to my ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Additionally, a fairly common reason why teams lose in front of me is they don’t extend well enough. I have a high threshold for extensions. You must extend both your link chain and your impact; if you drop either your link chain or your impact, you will not be getting any offense from that contention, as in the best case scenario, either you make something happen but that something has no impact, or you win that something would have a big impact but you that thing won’t actually happen. If you want to win, be thorough on your extensions.

I am fine with frameworks, and I am influenced by my LD background when evaluating rounds with them. If one team runs a framework in their constructive, their opponents must run a counter-framework in the following speech, lest they risk conceding the framework debate. I do want to see you give me warrants for why I should prefer your framework over your opponents' (and to extend them), so I have a way to decide which framework to use. I will not use both. The framework is the lens through which I view the entire round and weigh its impacts. I am willing to vote for teams which lose or concede the framework debate so long as they have impacts which link into their opponents' framework. Therefore, in a round with a contested framework debate, I encourage you to do two sets of weighing: one if you win your framework and one if you lose it. I may weigh the same impact very differently given a different framework with which to weigh.

If neither team runs a framework, I take utilitarianism to be the implicit default. That means that, if your case focuses on some form of structural violence or oppression, I strongly encourage you to run a framework. Otherwise, because utilitarianism treats the utility of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk exactly the same as it does that of anyone who is marginalized or oppressed, I would need you to give me quantifiable impacts that I could weigh against your opponents'. I can't rely on what seems or is obvious; I need you to be the one to verbalize it and get all the way to the quantifiable impact, because otherwise I would be imposing truth over tech.

Critically, under this implicit framework, I'm much more concerned with individual-level impacts than societal-level impacts. What that means is that I won't vote on whether you'll boost GDP, avoid a recession, avert armed conflict, or close an income gap, unless you tell me what concrete effect that has on the real-life people who would be affected. What I care about is how many people you take out of poverty, how many people you prevent from becoming unhoused, how many lives you save, or how future generations would be impacted. I realize not every PF debater is familiar with philosophy, so feel free to ask if you have any questions about utilitarianism or what that means for how I weigh given the absence of a framework.

Finally, as a note on nukes: I'm very skeptical of nuclear armageddon impacts. I won't rule out any arguments before they're made, but if you do make this argument, I'll want you to tell me why your opponents' world leads to nuclear armageddon (and your world doesn't) when it has never happened thus far in the real world, despite plenty of opportunities. (Then again, your opponents also need to make this skepticism argument in the round if they want me to vote on it; otherwise, I'll begrudgingly have to weigh it on my own ballot, but I won't be very happy about it.)

Miscellaneous (all events)

Speed—I don't like speed, and I detest spreading. If you're wondering, "Is this too fast?," the answer is yes. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't flow it; if I can't flow it, I can't weigh it; and if I can't weigh it, I most certainly can't vote on it. You have been warned.

Time—I am strict on time. If my timer goes off or if I raise a closed fist near the end of a speech, that indicates time has expired; at this point, I will stop flowing, and I will not consider anything said in the overrun on my RFD. I time speeches and crossfires beginning with the first word (excluding roadmaps). Additionally, I will start prep immediately once your opponent's speech or crossfire has finished, unless you tell me you're forgoing prep. Telling me you'll "start prep in three, two, one" just wastes three seconds of your prep time, as I've already started timing.

Theory—It may not surprise you to learn, after having read the two prior paragraphs, that I think of myself as quite open to theory shells on the basis of the accessibility of the activity, particularly as such arguments relate to speed, spreading, or time abuse. That said, I’ve only ever actually judged one round that included theory, so I can’t give you much detail on how I evaluate theory arguments, save for the fact that I am willing to vote on it. I do know that statements like "this is PF" or "this is LD" are not theory shells and will win you precisely nothing on my ballot, so please give me a better reason than this. (After all, if you, I, or your opponent is not already aware that they are participating in a PF/LD round, there's likely a much bigger problem at hand.) As long as you can explain to me why something your opponent did makes debate less accessible to others in some way, I'm willing to consider it; I just may be a bit inconsistent with how I adjudicate theory until I've seen it a few times and know what I really feel about different sorts of theory arguments once I've seen them made. As a very important point, however: similar to my policy on frameworks, if your opponent introduces a theory shell, you must respond in your next speech — even if that speech is a PF second constructive — lest you risk dropping that theory shell.

Cross—I have no preference for whether you sit or stand during cross or speeches. If my timer goes off when you're still asking a question in cross, I will advise your opponent not to answer your question. If my timer goes off after you've finished asking a question or during your opponent's response, I will announce that your opponent may choose whether or not to answer the question.

Disclosure—I know this is generally the norm at most tournaments, but since it's less universal in South Dakota specifically, I'll add that I am perfectly fine verbally disclosing my decision and RFD after any round; just give me a few minutes to decide. Please also feel free to take any notes you might need during my disclosure or ask any questions you might have afterwards, as I may not be able to write a detailed RFD by the time the tournament ends and my access to Tabroom's online balloting and RFD system closes, as I'll be more focused on my own debaters.

Signposting—In addition to all the rest, I want to make a special note to implore you to please signpost clearly. If I don't realize where your argument fits on my flow, I may mistakenly think you dropped that argument. Even if I do figure what you're extending or responding to, the time it takes me to figure out where you are on the flow is time I'm distracted from what you're actually saying, which might mean I miss flowing something else that's important. All in all, always signpost.

Tech v. truth—I default to tech over truth, but I reserve the right to make exceptions — principally, if any debater's arguments defend, diminish, excuse, justify, support, or promote a current, historical, or hypothetical genocide or its perpetrators, or otherwise amplify its supporters' claims. If I ever have to invoke such an exception, neither you nor I are going to like it.

Personal attacks—I can't believe I have to say this, butI don't take kindly to claims that, because you're running a contention or framework meant to be helping a certain group of people, and your opponent hasn't responded by conceding the round, your opponent hates, doesn't care about, or is a bigot towards that group of people. I also don't appreciate assertions that, because they have not conceded the round, an opponent does not understand a system of oppression with which they have firsthand lived experience. As I see it, the purpose of such statements is less about paths to the ballot on my flow and more about flustering, frustrating, or angering your opponent into making poor decisions. Unfortunately for people who make these rhetorical choices, those choices also frustrate and anger me, and one of the decisions I have to make is whether I should tank your speaks as a result. Don't do it.

Names and pronouns—Please don't hesitate to let me know if I mispronounce your name or if there's another name you'd like to be called besides what's listed on Tabroom. I also default to using the singular they for all competitors unless told otherwise; I am happy to use any other pronouns instead or in addition if you'd like me to, but please also don't feel any pressure to disclose your pronouns if you'd prefer not to for any reason.

Basic respect—Let's just try to be decent people, folks.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins. I hope you enjoy your round, and best of luck!

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg

I am the head speech and debate coach for Tea Area. I’ve competed at both the high school and collegiate level and have coached since 2019.

Clear, organized communication impresses me over jargon. Talk at a speed that you feel comfortable, but do not sacrifice comprehensibility. If I cannot understand your speech, I cannot vote on your points. I value professionalism throughout the entire round—in crossfire especially. I flow arguments and do factor dropped arguments into my decision; however, debaters should clearly weigh their arguments, showing what is the most important, and tell me why they win the round.

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.