UPDATED FOR NEW TRIER 2020

Tim Edstrom
Edina High School, MN

Rounds on Topic: Around 20
Debate Experience: 16 Years
Coaching Experience: 10 Years
Judging Experience: 12 years

Masculine or gender neutral pronouns.

Chain? Yes. thegesture@gmail.com

STUFF FOR DIGITAL DEBATE

Overall I have found these to run smoothly for the most part. Everyone has to be willing to have the speech time stop and possibly give part of/the whole speech over depending on the level of lag or crash. Most tournaments have some tech time built in so don't worry if you drop the call- just patiently sign back in and we can figure it out as a room how to approach finishing your speech. If I can't hear you I will SAY SOMETHING as well as PUT IT IN THE CHAT.

The good news- I do flow and will probably have a very good idea of where I lost my ability to understand you. My internet has been pretty consistent but not perfect- hopefully I won't have many problems on my end but if I do drop out or lag badly PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHAT because I may not be able to hear it. This is also an important reason to pay attention to my video- if my head stops moving completely and I don't blink it probably means my signal cut.

Stylistically some changes are definitely necessary- in particular slowing down and being clear, especially on extremely dense blocks of analytics or wordy tags (some people are recommending a percentage of speed or something- it's really more you want to seek max clarity). Additionally, cross-x is tough when people talk over each other, and tag team cross-x is possible but more difficult. Sadly we may have to revert to some politeness norms of "Excuse me" etc to get our question/answer in and trust me, trying to orient towards a cross-x where I can actually hear what people are explaining makes the debate better for all.

OLD MEAT AND POTATOES PARADIGM- MICHIGAN 2019

I think the value of debate is in its incredible ability to help people learn not only about the world around them but also about themselves. Debate is not only what happens in the debate round, but also all of the attendant things that surround and go into the debates and the performance of the debaters: their work, their thoughts about their arguments, their partnerships, their coaches, personal relationships, stress of school, family life, upbringing, privilege, ethnic or racial identity, orientation etc etc etc. I mention this first and foremost because you should definitely understand that I connect to you in the difficulty of this activity and can appreciate that sometimes debate is so overly stressful, you might make a mistake, might say something wrong, or might be off your game. I will take into account the relative difficulty of the tournament and your place in it in my evaluation of speaks and the round.

Debate judges are not robots or argument calculators: we have feelings just like you. I do not believe that debate is merely a technostrategic forum for the comparison of cold and static policy ideals. Please know that I think beliefs like this are not only harmful, but seriously make me question people's actual grasp of what this activity is and can mean for people. The benefits of debate have been guarded by wealth, race, and heteronormative gender elitism for decades (and I am no exception to this rule- white masculine pronoun using individual here from a relatively privileged background) but I would like to think I can entertain the notion that we can use the space to examine some of the ideas that we have about the world around us and that actually effect us as people rather than pretending that the only importance of a debate is whether or not a policy would be successful. If we can't examine those questions in debate, I am of the opinion that debate can't really change. And it is, and it will, but it's slow and a long road and a hard fight. It's easy to lose hope.

Lest you turn away in anger because you want to just plain read a DA- that's awesome! I still very much enjoy and am compelled by what some call "traditional debate" and judge all sorts of rounds on the national circuit. I like politics DAs, cleverly researched case negatives, and impact turns. All arguments should strive to emphasize evidence quality and internal warrants, and comparison of these are one of the key ways to a ballot and good speaks for me.

I am generally a bit affirmative leaning on theory as many times process based counterplans stretch the definition of what could be called a solvency advocate and actively seek obscure terms on which to condition the plan. I do love PICs however, and think that they can lead to some of the most interesting debating. If it's going to be a theory debate, please slow down a bit- I want to be able to actually flow the reasons I should vote for you. Generally I find I am compelled to vote for the team that not only best explains their impact but also how it relates to the other impacts in the round, whether policy or critical.

I judge a lot of clash of civilization debates as well- just a note for these: a creatively explained TVA is much better than a generic text with little explanation of how it actually "solves the affirmative." I would like you to actually make an effort to interact with the warrants of the affirmative.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have. I'll do my best to accommodate your debating in any way I can. This activity is for the debaters and not the judges, and I will strive to make sure my decision reflects that philosophy. Have fun and good luck!

Experience

I debated Policy for two years at Millard South.

I mostly judge Policy with increasing amounts of LD.

I am an assistant Policy coach for Millard South.

General

Pronouns: He/ Him or They/Them

Email Chain - dannypolicydebate@gmail.com

I'm open to listen and to vote for almost any argument as long as it is argued well. I also need to be told why your argument matters if it's not a traditional policy arguments. I'm fine with arguments that talk about large impacts or those that effect our debate community, but again i have to be told why it matters. Clash is very important because it means both teams are thinking critically and it makes my job easier when it comes time to vote. I will not time speeches or prep time, mostly because I forget to start the timer and then look like a fool. Also don't be afraid to ask questions either before or after round. I probably will not catch your authors names so saying extend XYZ '15 card doesn't tell me much. Extend your cards but give me a brief analysis so I can flow it correctly.

LD

Speed

Coming from Policy i'm fine with speed but make sure you are clear else risk having arguments be dropped if I cant understand what is being said.

Value / Criterion

This is the toughest part for me judging LD as it's not something I thought about in Policy. I need to be told why your value or criterion is better or why your opponents is worse, just re-reading what your criterion is won't help anyone. If you can argue that your contentions can fit with your opponents criterion even better.

Policy

Contention / Impact

I'll definitely look at impact analysis as the heaviest factor when deciding on how to vote, I want probability, magnitude, and time frame. I also want a clear story on how we get from the resolution to your impacts with well defined internal links.

Theory

Theory arguments can be fun but they have to be specific to what is occurring in round. If i just hear a rehashing of the blocks and not an explanation of what happened in the round and why it matters im not likely to vote on it.

Specific Arguments

I think PIC's can be fun and creative. I enjoy kritiks but you better do a good job explaining how the alt functions. If it's a "high theory" argument there better be a lot of work done, don't expect me to be an expert on your author. Even though I am open to most arguments if you read "genocide good" , "oppression not real" et cetera I might vote you down then and there.

Closing thoughts

Debate for me were some of the best times I had and it should be for you too. Have fun, learn something new, and be respectful.

My email is meganemmaj@gmail.com. If I'm judging your round, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Background:

Did Policy debate my freshman year at Lincoln Park High school and my junior and senior year at Millard North High School; Most of experience was in the Nebraska Circuit, but I went to debate camp and attended a few NatCircuit tournaments.

I spent most of Junior and Senior year running identity Ks and other critical arguments. I'm familiar with some Ks, but don't assume I'm well-versed in your literature - I'll need a good explanation of your theory to vote for you. I'm comfortable judging policy v. policy debates, just don't expect me to have any prior knowledge about your arguments or to know what your abbreviations mean.

I'm fine with speed, but I haven't judged in a while and the Milo Cup will be my first time judging virtually, so consider slowing down a little bit or at the very least make sure to slow down for tags and analytics and make it clear to me when you are switching flows.

Paradigm:

There are no specific arguments that I am strongly for or against. I have biases like any other judge, but I'll do my best to evaluate the round according to what I have on my flow. If you provide a framework for me to judge the round with and defend it, I will evaluate the round accordingly.

AFF:

I expect you to have a good understanding of your arguments and be able to explain it clearly and consistently throughout the round. Extend your AFF and try to refer back to your evidence as much as possible to contextualize your arguments in every speech.

I don't care if you're topical, but I will vote for framework if you don't have a good answer to it.

Framework is a very technical argument, so it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, especially when you're having the same framework debate over and over again. Please just make sure you're prepared to defend your form of debate, and engage directly with the neg arguments. The best FWK rounds happen when you make your answers specific to your affirmative and (as much as possible) unique to the round.

NEG:

Whatever arguments you're running, make sure you explain how they link to the affirmative, and why they are a reason to vote neg.

If you are reading a K, make the link as specific as possible and give me a specific reason not to vote on the Perm, especially if it's a K vs. K debate.

I'm definitely willing to vote on framework as long as you can convince me that your impacts are important, and that the AFF being non-topical leads to those impacts. Ideally you should be making FWK arguments that are specific to the affirmative and engage with their answers. Just because you are running framework doesn't mean you should be regurgitating the same generic speeches in every round.

Contact info: jmsle20@gmail.com

TL;DR just explain things well to me. Make sure things are explained clearly and cross-applied to the opponents arguments and I'll do my best to understand. After judging some national circuit debate rounds as well, I’ve realized I cannot keep up with the speed of the higher level national circuit so please aware of that and slow down. I may or may not tell you to slow down.

Speed: I think i'm ok with speed, thought after dowling i've realized not as good as i used to think. Overall somewhere around 7/10 on speed. that being said, if ur going to read a theory shell or something thats really blippy with lots of short claims,example FW, you're gonna need to slow down. If you go like many many really short blippy off, please go slow. Most other things im able to keep up well enough.

I used to be a CX debater for Millard North. I debated for 3 years as a identity/performance debater from 2013-2017 with one gap year. I coach on and off for the Millard North debate team as well.

Critical Arguments: I do have a bias towards critical arguments. While I do my best to not let this cloud my judgement it does happen. While I don't have a good understanding of many arguments here I do my best to have some kind of basis for most arguments. I do struggle more with postmodern literature so in terms of those just make sure everything is clear and explained well and avoid jargon if possible. It also helps if the argument has a material basis in the alternative. While theoretical alternatives are fine, if they don't have some kind of real world example then it's harder for me to vote for. tldr for critical stuff - i have an ok baseline about the mainstream args, just make sure u explain methods/alts/links etc etc well.

Critical Affs: I like critical affs, I ran one myself in HS. That being said, make sure you're doing the work against FW teams and other K teams to explain what offense exists and why I should vote aff and not just vote neg on SSD.

Plan text Affs: I did performance and identity args in HS so I am less familiar with nuances that come from classic plan text affs vs. x offcases as well as more technical arguments. Just make sure to explain arguments and analysis and I should be fine.

T/FW: I struggle to understand them unless there is clear abuse coming from the aff. I am starting to understand them better, however T and FW debates tend to be more blippy than not so just be sure to explain offense clearly. In terms of speed on the theory debates, be careful just spreading through ur entire theory shells and stuff in front of me cause i will probably miss a lot of the one liners that you end up spreading through especially if you end up not flashing the analytics

Mid-Season Update: I didn't think I'd need to make note of this, but if you do race science I will end the round and give you 0 speaks. The notion that any race or ethnicity of people possesses a biological or cultural pre-disposition to crime is not an idea worth meriting and I will not watch teenagers casually debate it.

He/They

"If debate isn't fun, you might be doing it wrong." -Edmund Zagorin

Put me on the email chain please and thank you - amrmarq@gmail.com

2020 Update - I recognize that online debating isn't perfect and I'll be sympathetic to the difficulties debaters inevitably have with their tech. I also ask that debaters turn their cameras on while they are spreading because the visual improves my ability to flow, but you won't be penalized for choosing not to.

tl;dr

If fun isn't one of the reasons you're a policy debater, don't let it show. I'm a person. I get bored. If you make me laugh, teach me something fascinating, or connect with me as a person my desire to vote for you will increase.

Frame your arguments. Explain to me why your impacts matter (even extinction). Your final rebuttal should tell a story that's unique to the intersection of the arguments presented in that round. When in doubt, your last rebuttal should start with some variation of "the nexus question of this debate is _____."

I like critical args with a capital K, but don't go for them in front of me if that's not your thing.

Don't assume I know your acronym.

My facial expressions usually give away what I'm thinking. Looking at me while you're speaking will benefit you.

Background

I debated for four years at Evanston Township doing primarily K stuff, currently coaching at Wayzata.

I'm happiest in the back of a really good K v K debate, but I've judged and enjoyed a lot of hard-line policy on policy debates so interpret that as you will.

What NOT to do

Read everything above and think "he's a K guy so I'm going to whip out a spicy meatball that I don't understand at all." Please just stick to what you're good at. I'd rather listen to a Horse-Trading debate than watch you pull a Puar backfile out of an evidence dumpster for brownie points (that being said if Puar is your actual strat I might just be a great judge for you).

I think expecting you to meet a prescribed standard of politeness is pretty silly. That being said I will assign a loss and award minimum (that's 0) speaker points for harassment or unacceptable offensive behavior. You know what this means, don't make me have a conversation with your coach.

The Criticism

My understanding of the literature will be above average, especially critical race theory, queer theory, and cap. I'm very responsive to arguments by post-structuralists like Baudrillard when done well, but I'm also ready to judge-kick the K if you never explain your nonsense.

I'd prefer contextual, specific links + clean line-by-line over a long overview. Give me impacts and tell me why they turn and outweigh the aff and/or their standards on framework.

Debate rarely spills out. Debate does inform our politics, values, and actions. There is pedagogical and epistemological value in what y'all do, but fiat probably doesn't work how you think it does.

Planless Affs

I did this a lot, and I'm all for it. I think you should be within the scope of the topic but honestly just do you. Give me a reason to vote for you and a justification for eschewing the resolution. The explanatory threshold is set by the effectiveness of your opponent's objections.

Debating Against Planless Affs

There's almost always a way to engage with the affirmative, and if there isn't then the aff is probably of so little substance that I'd vote neg on presumption anyway. Engaging with the metaphor of the affirmative when done convincingly will dramatically improve both my reception of your arguments and your speaker points. Additionally, there are many ways to respect the content while challenging the mechanism. Literally no one is trying to make you argue racism good.

I generally agree that planless affs increase the neg's research burden, but also can be persuaded that adequate disclosure checks this in certain instances. However, saying "aff explodes neg research burden" as an abstract point isn't convincing. Contextualize these claims to the topic, and compare the breadth of aff literature to past resolutions. See the next section for more on how to do this well.

Framework

It's a good argument. I try to stay tech>truth but you'll have a hard time winning my ballot by vilifying K debate. Generic backfiles are bad, and will not reflect well on your speaker points, especially if you're coming from a school with more resources. There are a few things both sides can do to facilitate a good framework round. Give me a model of debate, then tell me what happens if we debate under your model. Do we become better activists? Better thinkers? Do we win more debates? Impact out your model and compare it to theirs, fairness for the sake of fairness as an impact doesn't cut it. There are many persuasive link chains with terminal impacts that justify "traditional" debate, pick one or several but never have zero.

The TVA is important.

The interpretation is a prescription about what debaters ought to do in the future.

There's a critical lack of innovation in how many teams deploy framework. Things like agonism and arbitrary rules good have brought some variety but I think that there are boundless other potential arguments debaters could come up with if they want to circumvent their opponent's blocks. If you think K debaters are playing dirty by making pre-round prep obsolete, innovate your framework blocks and give them a taste of their own medicine.

CP/DA's

I love a good advantage CP. Specificity is obviously good. Tell me a story, make it interesting. Both sides should prioritize explaining to me how to frame the round and my ballot. I shouldn't be the one deciding whether or not uniqueness overwhelms the link, or that the solvency deficit outweighs the internal net benefit. The likelihood of you walking out of the round thinking my decision was bogus goes up the more you force me to make these decisions on my own.

Theory and Topicality

Keep the flow clean and number your arguments. I default to it being a procedural but can be convinced otherwise. I reward high-level thinking about what debate should look like. Three well-developed standards beat thirteen that are poorly-developed. Numbering your arguments will improve your speaks and my ability to follow you.

Other thoughts

-Antonio 95 is the best worst card in debate

-Debate is a strategic game about managing both your time and your arguments. I think the number one thing that keeps good debaters from becoming great debaters is a lack of strategic vision within any given round. A lot of debaters get caught up in getting as much ink on the flow as possible without thinking about which arguments are actually going to be the central issues. Like chess, high-levels of debate require having a vision of what your opponents next move (or ten) will be and putting yourself in a position to respond to all reasonable choices they could make.

LD

I am a proponent of debaters doing what they do best and I am pretty open to hearing anything you want to run, policy debate will do that to you.

Value & Criterion: I find this debate tends to be muddled. The way this debate works for me is impact calculus: who's impact matters more and why. A good way to think about this debate for me as a judge is to tell me why you win under either teams arguments which is aided by having offense against your opponent. I am a policy judge, I think in terms of impacts more than anything else so be sure you explain to my what your impacts are and why they outweigh your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, probability).

I do have some cautions about those running "policy debate arguments" in LD.

Kritiks: I come from a slightly more policymaker background though I ran and competed against K's plenty of times. That background gives me a certain threshold of explanation of a kritik, the alt, the link, that I am comfortable voting on and I have found no matter the debaters ability, there structurally isn't enough time in LD to reach that explanation threshold. I have voted for Ks in LD, but have found myself still adjusting my threshold appropriately for LD. I say this as a caution for those who wish to run K's. Like I said, I've voted on K's in LD, but my threshold is higher than perhaps normal.

Theory: Theory can be good and effective when argued with standards and impacts to the debate round/space. Debaters who read a bunch of theory arguments at the bottom of their case, rattled off one after another, without independent justification for each one, likely will find I won't evaluate those arguments: 1) because of what I said before this and 2) I try to avoid flowing from the speech doc so I may miss one of the theory blips you give so you won't win because of it--even if I consult the speech doc, if need to know you said it and where in order for me to get it to my flow.

Please please please ask me questions if you have them. I put these three aspects of my paradigm here because I know these are The debate space is your space and I want to give you as much information about me as a judge as possible to set you best up for success so do not hesitate to ask. If one team asks a question and the other isn't present, I will make sure each team is aware of what was asked and what my answer is.

PF

As I come from policy I don't have any really strong opinions on what PF should look like.

My one opinion on PF is that the SECOND REBUTTAL needs to address BOTH SIDES of the debate (that means you should attack and defend in this speech), if you do not do this, any arguments you don't address will be considered conceded. It helps to even out the advantage given to the second team by speaking last. I generally prefer the summary to be line-by-line compared to a whole round picture, you won't be punished (speaker points, assumed conceded args).

Mostly for me, don't be idiots in the round (or in general) and we should have a good, fun round.

Also, I do like to make jokes (and by jokes I mean really stupid, unfunny jokes that I find funny) feel free to laugh, or don't laugh, at them, or me, but just a heads up. It surprises some people.

Please ask me any questions you have! I'm always glad to talk about anything debate related or not!

POLICY

Updated 8/6/2015 (Most a copy and paste from original)
Background: Debated for four years at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska and graduated in 2013. I don’t debate in college but am an assistant at Millard West. I go to school at UNL (if you wanted to know).
Spark Notes Version: Debate how you want to. That’s the most important thing. Debate is an educational game. Make sure you facilitate CLASH in the round. Please engage in your opponents arguments. Seriously. The biggest thing is do what you want to in the debate round. It isn't about me.
Speed: I am fine with. I will yell clear if I want you to be clearer.
Flashing Evidence: I will stop prep time when the flash drive is ejected from the computer of the team saving the files to it
Shadow Prepping: DO NOT SHADOW PREP. For clarity—shadow prep is defined as once prep time ends and one of the debaters in the round is still prepping. I will deduct prep time from the appropriate team. It is very annoying to see this trend. Once I see it happen less I will loosen up on this policy but I shouldn’t even have to mention it. Alas, I do.

Specific arguments:
Theory: This is always a difficult one to read the judges based on what they put on the wiki, and as such, theory is rarely run and it is even more rarely gone for. There is also a very simple reason for this: No one invests the time needed on theory to go for it. I love theory debates when they happen, but it kills me when they are done poorly. This is how I would evaluate a good theory debate: A shell can be used the first time it comes up by both sides, that’s fine. Just don’t zip through them. But when it comes time to going for the argument, you need to sit down and answer the shell of your opponent part by part. Just extending your arguments doesn’t work, answer back in full AND extend your arguments. Think of it like a Topicality debate, just extending your standards and voters won’t win you Topicality, the same applies here—you must answer. Do this and you will be in a better position to win theory in front of me. If you aren’t prepared to win a theory debate, don’t go for it—that’s a good rule of thumb for any debate actually.
Topicality: Speaking of Topicality, what would it take for me to vote on T? I loved topicality when I debated. It is such a great argument that has so many different aspects of it; it can be easy to trip up teams. That’s just a little so you know. Just like Theory, you need to answer every aspect of Topicality in order to win topicality, or if you are the affirmative, not lose on topicality. Never just extend the shells that are spewed off in the 1NC and the 2AC, do some in-depth analysis on the all levels. Interpretation is usually a big one to make sure to cover, then of course standards which prove the voters. Bottom-line: Clash on the topicality flow and utilize all of the flow to prove why you win.
Disadvantages: There is a theme in all of this, Clash and engagement. That is important on the disad as well. Also, I love disads. So much fun! Back to what is important to me. Well, all of it. Answer arguments is important, clearly. This should go without saying, but make sure your disads are Unique. This is something that is under-utilized in disad debate—specifics. Such as specific uniqueness evidence to people or pieces of legislation, or economic analysts, etc.
Politics: I love the politics disad and always enjoy seeing it ran. One thing—I hate the rational policy maker argument affs make against the politics disad—don’t do that. I will not vote on it.
Counterplans: I figure at this point I will be just reiterating myself if I talk about clash again, so I won’t. However, when negative you better show how you are competitive. Be warned, textual competition is shaky ground for me, functional competition is almost always a better way to go. That being said, if you love textually competitive counterplans I will listen to them, just be warned if challenged you better have clear and rock solid reasons as to why textually competitive counterplans are good.
Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks but you should know a few things about them to win them with me. As the negative, you need to win alternative solvency. If you don’t do this, you probably will lose. Negative, just because you give long overviews doesn’t mean you answered their arguments directly. You need to apply those arguments you made in the overview to the flow specifically.
Framework: Framework is a great way to tell me how to evaluate the round, whether it be policy-maker, or critical, or whatever you want. Be warned, I do not find the framework of “exclude my opponents because they debate wrong” persuasive at all. Just figured I would let you know that ahead of time…
Round Behavior: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Kicking Positions: I will not kick positions for you. If you argue it in the 2NR or 2AR, I will evaluate it.

Put me on the email chain: sandwiches95@gmail.com (yes I know).

Coach and former debater at Wichita State. I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2018) in high school.

They/Them

This will be my first year judging college. When I debated I was pretty much exclusively reading policy things. I think that my judging is probably a lot more middle of the road. I really don't care that much what kind of debate you wanna have I just hope it is interesting.

This is both a research and a communicative activity. I will reward well executed rhetoric and good research. I will probably read most cards over the course of the debate but will likely care about specific pieces of evidence only as much as I am instructed to by you all. Judge instruction above everything else.

Fine judge for silly impact turns. I am not asking for you to read bad arguments, but I am expecting you to be able to answer bad arguments.

Be bold and make decisions in the debate. Confidence is valuable. Straight turning things is highly underrated.

I am frustrated by the amount of debates I judge that consist of huge walls of cards and nearly no comparative analysis nor judge instruction. If the 2nr/ 2ar does not begin with an explanation of why you have won the debate, something has gone critically wrong. Good final rebuttals know what they are winning and what they are losing. Reading 10 cards on the link, then listing as many warrants as you can at max speed in the 2nr is not good link debating for me. Please have a "big picture" moment. If you think at the end of the debate I should go read every one of your cards, you probably did something wrong.

Disads

- Aff offense is usually really helpful on disads and can get you out of a jam. Trying to diminish the risk of a disad with a bunch of small arguments is usually less effective than a big defensive argument in the 2ar. Obviously the 2ac should have some diversity.

- Link/ internal link turns case is a big deal. My nuclear war also causes your nuclear war is not a big deal.

- Believing that there is always a risk of DAs/ advantages assumes that A) big mistakes are never made OR B) you can't just be "right" about something. I think both of those are possibilities. Just because you said the word "impact" does not mean there is a risk of an impact. Zero risk is still rare.

Counterplans

- Now I am just going to default to judge kick, but can certainly be convinced its bad if the 1ar says it. If you are a 2N you might want to remind me that it's an option by the 2nr, ideally the 2nc. I really don't want to be put in a position where kicking the counterplan wins the debate for the neg and the 2nr did not tell me I could.

- Conditionality bad is an argument and needs to be answered properly. Barring a big mistake from the neg, you probably need to spend a decent part of the 1ar flushing it out.

- I don't mind big counterplan competition debates on face, but typically 2Ns don't do a lot of debating and just throw as many definitions at the wall as possible. I just want some comparative analysis about why someone's evidence is better or creates better debates.

- "they have conceded sufficiency framing" grandstanding in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

T

- I tend to care more than most about what cards in T debates actually say. I feel like 80% of the time that a T card is good, I have to read a lot of the unhighlighted parts for it to make sense. I tend to care more about evidence quality on T than most other pages. I am a sucker for precision.

Ks vs policy affs

- If the round is just going to be a framework debate that's fine but I do like it when when a case debate happens. If reading 4 minutes of impact defense on case gets you nothing, then don't do it?

- I think that a lot of "soft left" affs are very bad at answering policy arguments and they are banking on you not being willing to read them. It is really cool if you prove them wrong.

- Making you link arguments interact with/turn case can be a rounding winning strategy. This is when actually debating the case will get you far and will probably be more difficult for the aff to answer than another 2nr that is 3 minutes of framework.

- the only stylistic thing I will say is if the 2nc is just gonna be straight down reading text you are gonna have to slow down a bit and make sure I get words like the name of the link down, even if you are pretty clear.

K affs

Framework

- I probably default to thinking about these debates in terms of models, but that seems to be less of the trend from the neg these days. I think it can be interesting when the aff defines some words and goes for a we meet but it usually doesn't get you across the finish line unless the neg messes it up. I am okay with the 2ac going all in on impact turns. These debates typically get hard to decide for me when both sides have very different types of offense and don't instruct me on how to weigh them. Tell me how to judge the debate and you will probably win.

K v K

- Offense is always important but it is at a premium when the disagreements between the aff and the neg get even more narrow. Just give me lots of judge instruction in these debates because I will have less generic dispositions about how to weigh certain arguments. The aff probably should get a perm but who knows what exactly it means to compete.

MISC

- I will not consider inserted re-highlighting of the other team's evidence. Text must actually be READ if you want it to matter. If you read a line of a card in CX and then send it out in the next speech doc, that seems reasonable. If a 1nc on case is just inserting rehighlighting I will be very unhappy.

- Quick note about speaks. I try to give points that will reflect the outcomes you deserve and I adjust based on the tournament I am judging. I try to consider if the quality of the speeches you gave was what I would expect of a team that was in elimination rounds or an individual that I thought was worthy of a speaker award and adjust to what I think would be required for that outcome. Speaker points are somewhat subjective but I try to give points that are somewhat reflective of how everyone else does them. You can ask for a 30 but I won't give it to you.

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

Round Framing:

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

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. To not do this will subtract -.5 pts from both teammate's scores.
• Both teams can agree to do a 'Challenge Round' where I will not backfill using the documents to fill in holes in your speech and depend entirely on your clarity of communication to flow. Both teams will receive a +1 pts to their scores for doing this.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will hit you with a -.2. It should be obvious when you need it, but too many debates get away with reading ~3 words that matter and
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped post-Covid. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have sent the email.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line.
• Send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block.

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

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

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

Debater Experience:

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

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

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

Overall Practices:

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

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

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

Predispositions:

Topicality:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

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

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

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

CP's:

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

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

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

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

DA's:

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

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

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

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

Even if statements are your friend.

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

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

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

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

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

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

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

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

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

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

I am not currently actively judging debates

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

WHO I AM:

Hello! My name is Sam Sagawa. At the moment, I am an undergraduate studying Computer Science at the University of Chicago. I debated Policy debate for three years with Brooklyn Technical High School and have competed with my school's Parliamentary debate program for the last two years. When I was a policy debater I started my career reading affs like OTEC and Carbon Sequestration, but later moved on to more critical affs: I'm most well-read on Derrida, Baudrillard, and Nietzsche (ESPECIALLY Nietzsche), but I'm mostly happy to listen to whatever. I feel roughly the same as my former coach William Cheung about my paradigm but will include notes here for your reference.

KEY NOTE:

I would rather watch an engaging round between two skilled debaters on topics that they enjoy than watch you try and read whatever you think I want to see. You actually want to read Nietzsche? Great! But if you don't, I won't give you extra credit for trying. DEBATE WHAT YOU'RE GOOD AT.

WHAT I WANT:

1. Actual Explanations: I'm not going to stop you if you want to spout meaningless pseudo-intellectual babble at me for eight minutes, but you better understand what the words you're saying mean if you want to win the debate. Nothing makes me more angry than people who read complicated arguments that they don't understand causing them to fall apart in the rebuttals.

2. An explanation of how to evaluate the debate: As a judge, I do not want to have to spend ten minutes doing impact analysis after the round. That's your job. Please do it. If I don't hear a framework to compare your impacts to the other team's in the debate and they give me one, you're not going to like my decision.

3. WARRANTS: Explain your arguments. If the other team doesn't, feel free to point it out. I feel like a bad person when I vote on a badly warranted argument, and try to avoid doing so whenever humanly possible.

LITTLE DETAILS:

*I'm good on speed. If you're significantly faster than the norm, I'll let you know to slow down. If this happens twice without you slowing down, I will stop reminding you and start docking your speaks.

*I enjoy performance and/or other forms of k debate, but if you lose on the flow you lose on my ballot.

*I'm a flow-centric judge and therefore very sympathetic to something being called a new argument IF IT IS ACTUALLY NEW. Do not call something new just because you didn't answer it.

*I also enjoy theory and framework, as long as the debate is well-executed. You do you.

*The only time I will look at evidence is if a dispute about it is brought up in the round.

*Case debates can actually be pretty entertaining and engaging.

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his) 

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable. 

Background: 

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well. 

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity. 

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case. 

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit. 

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision. 

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that. 

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense. 

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin. 

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation. 

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions. 

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD. 

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad. 

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory. 

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included. 

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework. 

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question. 

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity. 

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well. 

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it). 

Policy : 

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me. 

CP/DA/Case  1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

 I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better. 

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves. 

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”. 

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms. 

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. 

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework. 

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition? 

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference. 

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. 

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down. 

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. 

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much. 

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them. 

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness. 

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc. 

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it). 

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions. 

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions. 

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging. 

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight. 

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me. 

• Answer all of your opponent’s arguments in the next speech after they make them. I judge PF rounds occasionally where some of the speeches don’t respond to opposing arguments made in previous speeches and I’m not sure if that’s a failing of particular teams or if it’s a community standard practice, but I’m too locked into the “line by line” system from policy to ignore dropped arguments. 

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you. 

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them. 

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win. 

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments

Personal Context:

* I use they/them pronouns; though, I prefer that you not refer to me specifically at all in round.

* Debated, judge, and currently coach for Millard North High School in Omaha, NE. My teams don't have a specific paradigm - they run either K-leaning positions or Traditional-leaning positions. I have experience coaching on most points along the K-Trad spectrum.

* Debated in the NDT/CEDA circuit with Arizona State and in the NFALD circuit with University of Nebraska-Lincoln (with varying degrees of success). I mostly ran kritikal arguments on both aff and neg sides with large emphases on Biopolitical critiques and Butler-esque IR critiques.

* By default, I evaluate rounds on offense/defense paradigm with tech > truth as the internal link to weighing thresholds. However, I am flexible on this if teams sufficiently warrant a shift away from that paradigm.

General Paradigm:

Just run whatever you want in front of me. Do what you're comfortable with and what is the most fun for you. If you're more comfortable running 8-off neg strats with heg good impacts, do it. If you want to run more performance-based models of debate, please do so.

I evaluate debates on the following criteria:

1) Did you sufficiently warrant how I should evaluate the round (framing, T, theory, etc)?

2) Did you sufficiently answer the primary question/issue of the debate?

3) "Are there reasons why an approach is dangerous or insufficient that overwhelms its positive potential?" - Ryan Wash

Dean Ziegelman

Last Edited 9/1/2019

Blue Valley Southwest 2017

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2021

This should give you a general guideline for how I think about debate. Everything is subject to some change. If you have any questions, please ask.

1) Tech determines truth. A complete argument must have a claim and a warrant.

2) Clarity determines speed. Debate is first and foremost a speaking activity. Clarity means me being able to understand every word in your evidence, not just the tag.

3) I am not ideologically neutral. As much as I try to distance my predispositions about certain arguments in debate, I should say that I believe that certain arguments are more compelling than others. I.e. Fairness good > fairness bad; death bad > death good.

4) Be nice.