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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

• Rosemount High School (1985-1989)

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

• Committee to develop the Novice Packet in Minnesota

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

Top Shelf:

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

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

Other thoughts...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

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 for Eagan High School for 4 years and I am in my fourth year of coaching policy debate for them. I have debated primarily in policy debate, but I was also a congress debater for a year and a half and dabbled in Big Questions. I have been judging in some capacity for 7 years starting my freshman year primarily for the MNUDL.

Topicality: I believe topicality is an important question in the debate space and will never dismiss it as an arbitrary argument. However, I am also very open to arguments that prove why topicality is not necessary for the aff or is actually a detriment to debate. If proved properly and argued well I will totally buy that some affs should be untopical and that topicality is actually a detriment to debate in specific circumstances.

K's: I ran some k's and debated a lot of them and have read a lot of critical literature in college, but I have a high-ish bar for K's. Particularly on the alt, without an alt, k's are vague DA's, so run them that way, or actually explain the alt to me. I think I've heard maybe 1 alt ever that actually make sense so I'm not expecting to buy what you say. That being said, if the other team fumbles it, I'll vote for you. I like the theory base for k's, but I often don't think they actually make sense in a debate context. 

Speed: I don't like speed debate, to be 100% honest. I debated somewhat fast and I can hear fast, but I've never liked it. I think it is one of the largest contributors to the death of policy debate and the reduction in the quality of arguments. It's made 80% of rounds I see blippy and underdeveloped on both sides where just the sheer volume of arguments is preferred to the quality, specificity or emphasis of positions. Everyone just scrolls down an email and no one has to listen to speeches. Also, I will not / can not catch every single little analytical you spew onto the flow when you're spreading 7 words a second and any judge that claims they can is lying. If you want me to pay attention to something specific, SLOW DOWN and EXPLAIN instead of making your tags 5 words long and reading 5 point blocks full of jargon and hyphens. I am a human being, not a robot, I can't flow everything perfectly, you'll need to accommodate the sad reality that I am not, unfortunately, a literal flowing machine.

How I Judge: Generally, I will vote on "tech" over "truth". Though the macro level is also vitally important to a debate, I wholeheartedly believe that the judge should never do any work for the debaters. I will only take what arguments and analysis the debaters provide in the round, I will not allow my personal opinion or judgment of "common sense" to rewrite what was actually said. This means that I highly value drops and extensions in round. However, I will NOT evaluate an argument if I don't hear it or if it is just as blippy as every other argument in the speech. If you want me to take an argument more seriously than others it is your responsibility to blow that up (which means, yes, maybe you should slow down to show emphasis). Pointing out when things are dropped and continuing to extend impacts and voters is crucial, but you have to actually extend it IN DETAIL. I believe at the end of the day that debate is an educational game to teach knowledge and skills. The point is to have fun, think critically and help everyone involved to learn more about the world we live in.

Framing: I try to be open minded about framing and the weighing you give me in the round and as described above, I'll take what you give me. That being said, I don't like extinction scenarios and in general I don't like crappy internal link chains that get you to extinction or other extreme scenarios with little to no real explanation. I think probability, overall, makes the most sense, and I don't think terminal impacts have some exalted place above structural ones. Usually, these link chains become trash earlier, like "econ collapse = global war" with little to no explanation. Realistically, most teams don't actually contest these links, but I like it when teams do. Really press these teams on how we're getting to literal extinction from one plan in congress, you know? If you told that to anyone outside of debate, they'd laugh at you. Convince me why I shouldn't be laughing too. 

Other Things: Don't expect me (or anyone for that matter) to know the complex intricacies of your k rhetoric or obscure policy action, explain your evidence like you would to a non-debater. This will improve clarity, accuracy and quality of debate for everyone in the round (and maybe up your speaker points as well). I do not know all of the specific positions and I'm no expert on the topic knowledge. It will take me longer to grasp things you explain less, that might mean I don't fully understand something you were saying by the end of the round. It is your burden to make sure that doesn't happen, like I said above, I'm not a calculating super-computer, I'm a fallible human, please treat me like one.

Evidence/Flowing: I would like to be on the email chain for convenience's sake, but I'll try not to just read along during your speech. More importantly, I don't want to have to read along during your speech. It is your responsibility to speak clearly enough for me to hear and write down your argument. I'll only look at the evidence in depth if told to.

Email: joshgroven@hotmail.com

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his

I am beginning to judge more events other than just policy but I have almost zero experience with other forms of debate.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

School conflicts: Minnesota, Glenbrook North, Como Park

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

Stuff related to online debating:

Don't delete analytics from the speech doc, please. I'll probably dock your speaks if I remember to. Online debate is harder to flow than in-person so it's good practice if you want me to catch everything you're saying.

Please slow down a little (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech--------------x----------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory-------------------------------------x--------- Substance -- condo is really the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose".

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. Why don't people read death good anymore? I am an edgy teenager at heart and could be convinced the human race should go extinct.

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

I try to give out speaker points that are representative of how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another as opposed to simply in vacuums.

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, and 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped).

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. econ inequality and nukes. I do feel like in the end the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves a ton of other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses. This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

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.

My pronouns are They/Them

Debate History: Laura Jeffery MS (2 years) State Champion 2013. Avalon HS Nov/JV (2 Years)

Coaching History: Avalon HS peer coach (2 years). Current Laura Jeffery MS coach (2 years).

Judging History: HS judge (2 years)

Evidence: Add me on the email chain so I can keep up. rileymolitor@gmail.com I know the topic pretty well but like to read along and double check when I'm flowing.

Spreading: I expect speed that is understandable. If I can't understand you, you loose speaker points. You must be able to pull off a cohesive argument throughout all your flows. Doesn't mean I won't vote for you if you spread, just means that it has to be well done.

Argument Types: Don't be afraid to run anything in front of me- I want to see what you're best at. I'll probably grimace if you do Topicality, BUT that doesn't mean its an automatic loss. Let's see what you got.

Judging Style: I judge based on what strategies I see, on how each speech is, and on the story that you are telling me. Impact calc is everything to me. I'm going to be paying more attention to the flow and the way that you use your arguments. I like to see creativity and an understanding of the evidence. I think I have more of a coach's eye at this point.

I do not appreciate "She said this..." or "He dropped..." If you are going to do that- say "The affirmative stated..." or something professional. Cheap shots like that are not going to win my vote- they might loose it. I am paying attention to the debate's topic and your arguments.

Speaker points: are going to be above 26 unless you cut your speeches short, or insult the other team or are visibly rude to your partner.

tl;dr: You probably won't want me judging a performance aff. K's are cool if you make me understand it, and give it a reason to vote for it in the round (Have. An. Impact). Policy oriented debate is cool. I have no issue voting on theoretical objections/T if they're impacted and shown why it matters.

I won't vote on a position I don't understand. Make sure you explain your position if you want me to vote on it.

[MN Novice Only]: If you break the rules of the packet I WILL NOT hesitate to vote you down, especially if the other team says something. This activity is difficult enough to learn, going into a grey area of packet rules makes it un-fun for other students and un-educational when I need to only coach whack-a-mole answers to rule breaking arguments instead of debate skills.

Email: Nixon@RosemountDebate.com

Experience:
I was a Policy debater for 4 years at Rosemount High School in Rosemount Minnesota. I was a very Policy heavy debater and rarely utilized Kritiks. I have been coaching Policy debate at Rosemount High School since graduating in 2010 and have been judging tournaments in Minnesota.

Philosophy:
I will listen and vote on almost any argument or position you choose to read in front of me. With this freedom of positions you can run there are some caveats though. I prefer to see policy impacts in the round. I would prefer a Counterplan and Disad debate over a critical debate any day. I like to see impacts I can weigh in the traditional Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude model. This does not mean you cannot run a Kritik in front of me though. It just means that if you choose to run one you should make sure it has an impact in the round. If this is not a traditional impact which can be weighed against the Aff, you need to provide me a way to weigh your impacts in the round or I will likely fail to see how your Kritik is going to outweigh the plan.

I tend to weigh Kritiks and anything non-traditional against the aff (or neg, if you're running a non-traditional aff) in a very policy oriented way. I look for impacts, either in the round or after implementation of the plan. I tend to evaluate procedural arguments very heavily in the case of performance affs. I am often uncomfortable judging performance affs.

Kritiks come with a caveat as well. As I stated, I was a policy impact focused debater. I did not read the philosophy y'all are reading in your Kritiks, and I haven't since being a debater. Your position should be clear and there should be explanations of your positions if you are reading some obscure author I've never heard of. I welcome Kritiks, but make sure they have impacts, and make sure I can understand them, or I can't promise my interpretation of your K will match your interpretation.

Topicality and other procedural arguments are fine with me but I have to see why it matters at the end. If you just do a "Extend all of my T" at the end, I probably won't vote on it.

Speed is fine with me. Read as fast as you feel you need to, but make sure your tags are clear. I cannot stress this enough. If I cannot understand you during your tags You likely are not going to get your position across to me. Annunciate and you will be fine.

Email chains: I'd like to be on the Email Chain. I do think that Debate is a speaking activity though, and if I miss something I shouldn't be using the speech docs as a crutch to help unclear presentation. Sometimes I miss things because I'm running slow in the morning (8am is too early for me) and it's not your fault, or after lunch, or because I haven't had caffeine. These aren't your fault and I will use the speech docs in these situations.

Flowing: Debaters are starting to use speech docs as a crutch and not flow. It's incredibly common now for debaters to answer cards which were never read simply because they were in the speech doc. Also it's becoming common for debaters to think they need to send out altered versions of their docs to take out cards they didn't read. This is incredibly annoying and actively KILLING debate as a verbal activity. If this happens in a round I'm judging I will be lowering speaker points.

Tag team cross-ex is fine, unless you ask me if it's fine. Then it's only fine if you physically tag your partner when wanting to tag team.

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

*

*

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

• I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

• Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

• Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

• The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

• It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

• Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

• If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

• You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

• First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

• Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

• Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

• The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

• Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

• Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

• I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

• And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

• Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

• I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

• I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

• I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

• Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

• Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

*

*

Lincoln Douglas:


Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

2014-18, Eagan HS MN

2018-19, Concordia College Debate (RIP)

2019-2021, The University of Minnesota Debate (Graduated with BA in Political Science.)

Qualified NDT years: 2019-2020 (RIPx2)

Pronouns: She/Her

IF YOU ARE VARSITY AND DO NOT TIME YOUR SPEECHES YOU WILL NOT GET ABOVE A 27.5 SPEAKS FROM ME

If you're reading this you're doing a great job already props!

yes, I want to be on the email chain thisiseliseshih@gmail.com

Personal Background

I believe a personal background outside of my debate philosophy is important to understand me in context therefore a short synopsis of my life. I was a former policy debater in a rather local circuit in highschool before joining the University of Minnesota debate team. I've been familiar with more classic policy debates and NatCir style debate. Since graduating I've pursued political work with the Democrats and now with a labor union. Personally, I try not to make my preferences felt in debate and try to remain as impartial as possible.

In terms of personal ideology, I've been described as a tankie take that as you will. I'll still vote for right-wing, policy hack, PRL positions.

I was a political science major that debated for UMN@TC so I am familiar with most aspects of politics IR, political philosophy, American politics, etc. I was a K debater in high school I ran cap K, anarchy, Nietzsche, biopolitics, and I was a little bataillecurious. In college, I ran queer theory, Deleuze, transhumanism(cyborgs), and a bit of ableism. I'm familiar with most K arguments outside of those, but I am not an expert by any means, and don't expect me to know them and get sloppy with your explanations! As of now, I am a coach for a "PRL" school though I loath the term it is useful to orient your understanding of my background.

In short, almost* anything goes

*The one exception to that will not vote for exclusionary/toxic arguments in any way shape or form I'm sorry but we are all human at the end of the day and we should respect each other even if our opinions differ.

CP

In general, I dislike techy counter plans with no solvency advocates since I think they fail the burden of truth, on a base level I think counterplan's should have a solvency advocate even if in the abstract but I won't knock it down just because of that fact.

DA

Does anyone even have controversial opinions on these?

Yes, non-linear DA's exist and the more convoluted the link chain the harder it will be to win the DA is true.

K

you do you I'm sure I will have some idea of what you're saying.

Framework/"T"

After running and seeing a lot of K affs in the college circuit I've revised my stance on them. You will be rewarded for a good framework, but don't expect to win just because you have "more ink" on the flow. Framework requires you to decisively win the entire flow to win the argument. Sloppy work that becomes difficult to flow will make that harder for you. Vomiting prewritten blocks in the neg block won't get you brownie points so make sure to contextualize and actually listen to what your opponents say.

in short, I reward tenacity.

Aff

I can default policymaker/educator/activist whatever you want me to be.

Though, there is some irony in calling me a government agent because I used to work for Congress.

Random thoughts

In general, I will be willing to listen to most arguments. I am not so much an ideologue that I have an opinion on what the "right" way to debate is that's something I think debaters need to decide amongst themselves. I'm just here to watch the round and render a decision.

tech > truth unless the tech is blatantly wrong I.E. if you tell me China is a democracy I'll probably be pretty sus on it. This doesn't mean I don't reward nuance though. I will probably be lenient to good T interps that can split the topic effectively. The most topics seems like word goop, so I will also appreciate clear T interpretations.

I've judged more rounds than what my history shows.

To L/D or PNW people reading this, I am a policy debater and I don't usually judge L/D or PNW so please be aware

local non-circuit POLICY MN tournaments only

improper disclosure or no disclosure will be punished with a 0.2 speaker point penalty

proper disclosure on the other hand will be rewarded 0.2 speaker points

Minigame

because debate should be fun here's a game

properly incorporating any piece of evidence from https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/461 and using it in the round will gain 0.1 speaks from me. This does not mean I will grant the evidence as true or that you will win because you read it. It is a gambit so choose wisely if you decide to do it. (applies to college and HS!)

In-Round Etiquette

people should feel welcome in debate and giving courtesy and decency to the common person is something we should all aspire to do.

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

Rosemount High School (MN)

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

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

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

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

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

--

Yes, email chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Some details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Older Profile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

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

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD