I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Please talk slowly, I don't like debate speed speaking. If you're speaking too quick and I miss something, it won't be on my flow. 

Background: I was in speech and debate at East Ridge High School in Minnesota and graduated in 2018. I did info and OO in speech. I mainly did congress while I was in debate, but I also competed in PF decently often, and in World Schools at nationals. I also did IPPF and extemp debate.

I graduated from the University of Minnesota - Carlson School of Management in December 2021 with a degree in finance. I work at Travelers in fixed income investments, i.e. the bond market. I am currently pursuing my CFA designation. With that educational and professional background, I tend to favor economic arguments. These are usually easier for me to keep up with and are very enjoyable for me to listen to! I do love a creative argument though. 

Debate philosophy: I think debate is a great academic activity that teaches critical thinking, research, speaking, and other life skills. I'm a "Truth > tech" judge. In all debates, I would rather a competitor have 2 thorough, nuanced contentions than 4 thin, poorly defended contentions. I enjoy being persuaded, not being told at.

In congress, I like either new arguments, or a rebuttal speech. Please do not recycle arguments, and please do not recycle rebuttals - both don't move the debate forward. I tended to PO a lot in high school, so I have a healthy appreciation for a well run chamber. Feel free to use puns and other methods to improve your speaking stylization!

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Congress: I am primarily a LD judge. This means that I want to see clash and good questions, not just softballs to your own team or side. I will drop round points to a 1 for anything -ic or -ist (ie homophobic, transphobic, racist etc). I will probably judge 50/50 (1-3 points presentation and 1-3 for content).

Experience: I debated a year of LD, and half a year each of PF and Congress. I student managed for my team the last two years of high school, so I stayed within the community and the brain sphere, and then after graduation came back to coach for Lakeville. I primarily have coached Novice LD so please be kind when running theory and more advanced stuff, and make it clear.

Give me reasons to vote for you but don't assume you have won arguments just because you said them.

I am fine with a bit of speed, but be clear and preferably don't spread.

Sign post, sign post, sign post!

Give me extensions and drops and please make them clean.

Most importantly: Be professional and be respectful.

I absolutely do not need your camera to be on.

I did classic debate for four years when I was in high school and am most comfortable with traditional cases. If you are gonna run anything circuit-y, please do not spread and outline your arguments well

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

1. I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
2. Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
3. Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
4. @ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

1. tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
2. However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
3. The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
4. Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
5. I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
6. I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

1. Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
2. Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
3. Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
4. This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
5. If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

1. I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
2. Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
3. Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

STMA '20

UMN '24

(they/she)

2023 CEDA Octofinalist

2X NDT Qualifier

Email: ryandavistx@gmail.com

TLDR: Do whatever you do best, just be nice :)

General:

I did 4 years of LD in high school, now I do policy in college. Run whatever. Write my ballot for me. I care the most about accessibility in the round, so please make sure that you make the round as accessible as possible. I don't think you need a card for everything--good answers don't need them. Answer questions during cx--I'm over "i DoN'T hAvE a cArD for that". Please don't call me judge, it's weird. Don't ask for time to preflow--do it beforehand or do it during prep. Please respect both me and your opponent during the round, if you do anything blatantly disrespectful, I will tank speaks. Add me to the chain, it's at the top. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after the round, or you can email me after the round if you have any questions too :)

Specifics:

Kritiks: I'm familiar with very few K's but I'm totally open to any. Clear links are very important and links of omission shouldn't be the only thing that you are going for. You need to clearly explain the alternative/explicitly kick it. It's very important that you take the time to contextual the K to the round. I'm not a fan of K affs that don't have some relation to the topic/are about the debate space itself, I'm not going to say don't read them but....

DAs: I love them! The way to make sure you win is to do clear impact calc and tell the story of the DA.

CPs: They're fine, they need to be competitive and have a net benefit. No net benefit means that I probably won't vote for it. PICS are fine.

Topicality: I'm not the best person for T debates, but it's hard when there is little discussion about the world of the topic according to each side's interp and good impact calc coming from both sides.

Theory: Please stop reading under views in the 1AC--I don't care, you can read theory in the 1AR--READ MORE CARDS. If you're going to read it, go slower on it and make sure that you do really clear impact calc. I'm very sympathetic if I think there is clear abuse. I also will vote on dropped theory pretty easily (do with that info what you will). I will protect the 2NR when it comes to theory debates because 2ARs are getting away with too many new arguments when going for theory. Despite being a 2A it's hard to convince me of condo, usually, if the neg is running bad blippy args I'll vote on it, but otherwise, it's tough to get me to vote aff. Perf con is probably fine.

Impact Turns: If you're going to do it go for the good ones that actually are worth debating(Heg Bad, Dedev, or Prolif), I don't like spark (you can still read it I guess). Don't double turn yourself

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but you need to be clear and give me time to switch pages. If I can't understand you I'll yell clear, but it's your job to adjust from there. Make sure that you go slower on analytics, perms, theory, or anything where specific wording matters/I can't find it in the speech doc.

Spikes/Tricks: Please just don't. They're so bad for debate and a waste of everyone's time.

Other: If you're on the circuit please be nice to lay debaters and just be nice to people in general. For accessibility reasons, if you can, please send a speech doc. It's even better if it includes analytics and anything with specific wording (perms, theory, etc.), but I get you're pressed for time, so if you can't it's ok, just slow down. I will tank your speaks if you continually misgender someone, are racist, homophobic, etc. Please make the round a safe place. If you feel unsafe in the round, please just let me know however you're most comfortable and I will intervene.

This is my first year judging Lincoln Douglas, but I have a decade's worth of experience in Forensics, mostly concentrated in Speech. I strongly appreciate signposting and adherence to framework. I also prefer that arguments be specifically targeted to the resolution with thorough research; while generic moral arguments are valuable, they ought to support a more defined and evidence-based argument. To that end, I find a deeper argument more persuasive than a broad array of surface-level contentions.

Regarding speed, I do not have enough practice evaluating top-circuit speed. However, I can tolerate faster speeds as long as the arguments are well signposted and the card names are spoken clearly. Additionally, during cross examination, please allow the questioner to pose their questions - this is helpful to me as a judge so I don't have to evaluate crosstalk and it's respectful of your opponent (better speaker points).

My knowledge of French philosophy is stronger than most of the other schools, but in general you can assume that you need to explain your philosophic arguments for my benefit. I am unaccustomed to much of the jargon, so you'll benefit from sacrificing a little time to better elaborate your reasoning.

Add me to the email chain: dean.doneen@gmail.com

I coach LD Debate at Roseville Area High School in MN

Speed is fine under most circumstances, probably not great to plow through Deleuze at top speed though. I'll say clear/slow 3 times max.

Please debate the resolution

27.5 is average speaks

I will not vote for a prioris (this doesn't include thought out deductive argument like an amoral state NC)

If you have a dog, please include a picture at the bottom of your speech doc

I think I flow pretty well and speed is fine, but if you make 6 quick arguments at top speed and don't remind me of them when you give voting issues and I missed one of them, I won't change my vote based off of the argument I missed. I'd encourage your summary of the round to be at a slower pace.

What a 30 looks like

- I learned something from you

- Your time management was great

- It is clear you are very knowledgeable on everything you read and arguments you made

- You won the round

- You did not do any tricks/ you did not read any a prioris

- You had a great under view/voting issues in your final speech summarizing the debate

- You spoke slower than your opponent (this can still be spreading)

Policy Making

- Advocacy needs to be clear. This doesn't necessarily mean a plan text.

- I won't weigh for you

Critical Theory

- You should have a ROB

- Jean Baudrillard ruined my life, and for that I am forever grateful

- I'm uncomfortable judging debate rounds centered around identity politics. You can do it and you won't lose any speaks, but these debates are harder for me to evaluate.

- Just because an activity produces meaning (a sign) does not mean it is harmful or "co-opts" something. Signs are an important part of communication, if not the entirety of it.

Theory

- I default to reasonability, no RVIs, drop the argument, and it is getting harder every day to convince me otherwise.

- Sometimes I just won't vote for your shell if I think it's really bad.

- I don't believe that Theory is not a strategy. If abuse is real, go right ahead.

- If you consider yourself a theory/tricks debater, I am not the judge for you

- I will not vote for disclosure theory in LD. However, disclosing is probably a good thing to do and parity in document access is important

- I will not vote on potential abuse.

Tricks

- don't

Lay Debate (MN Circuit)

- I don't really care much about the value debate. You could literally just say your value is "good" and I'd buy it

- The standard/criterion debate DOES matter, very much so.

- Being easy to weigh isn't a real reason why your ethics are best

2024 update

I have been out of debate for about 5 years, but this paradigm holds true. End of the day, debate is about you as the debater and I as the judge will do my best to evaluate whatever you choose to do, so long as what you choose to do is not violent. Do you. I may be behind on some jargon so make sure you can explain your buzzwords and if you don't mind work into your top speed so I can acclimate (especially over Zoom!), but speaks will be highest for rounds where I get to see debaters doing what they are most comfortable with and doing that well, whether thats a K, LARP-y policy args, or theory. Strangely, the part of debate I miss most after these years is the ridiculous theory debates. Take that as you will, and Godspeed.

Danny.franksiegel@gmail.com

UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 2018

I enjoy a good K debate but I don't hack for the K. I don't love tricks as an argument style but a well explained trick can be fun to judge. When its frivolous I have a hard time buying theory, but will evaluate the debate nonetheless. Over the course of one tournament (Valley) I voted for the indexes a priori, Baudrillard, Kant, a LARP aff, and theory. If any of those things sound like arguments you read and you HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN WELL ENOUGH TO ME TO WARRANT MY BALLOT then pref me. If you do not believe you can have a good and nuanced debate where you explain the intricacies of your position to me, do not pref me highly, because when you don't explain things and your opponent does you will lose me quickly. The only exception to this is explicitly violent language, which I will not take kindly to/intervene against in extreme instances. This is the only scenario in which I will intervene. You can read the rest of my paradigm if you want to (if you are a theory debater trying to make a judgement call on whether to put me at a 1,2, or 3, you may want to read the TJFs/ Sliding Scale section below), because I do go more in depth on some things. But this should be the size of it.

Extra note: if you are debating a novice/debater without a lot of circuit experience, I won't force you to adapt to them, but an attempt to make the debate more accessible (this can look like slowing down, intentionally being forthcoming in cross, reading a position that is engagable, editing your case so that it can be read in an accessible way) I will bump speaks a bit.

YOUR ROUND IS ABOUT TO BEGIN AND YOU NEED TO KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS:

Plant ontology is a true arg. But so is T. Here we go...

tl;dr: do you.

I really don't care what you do. I'm good for all of it. As long as you are not actively offensive in the round. If you are/if someone asks you to stop doing something they perceive as violent and you blow it off/do not make an effort to change your behavior I will take your speaks I would've given, subtract 4, assign your speaks that number, and then wait that many seconds to talk to your coach after the round.

My Preferences/Things you should know about me:

-My pronouns are he/him. I will ask for your pronouns before the round (if I forget please remind me!). That is the most I will ask you to disclose about your personal identity unless you choose to do so later in the round. You do not have to tell me anything about yourself you don't want to.

-I'm kind of a point fairy in LD and more of a stickler in policy. I try to match my speaks to the average I perceive on the circuit.

-I judge a lot of theory debates but I don't love them. I'd much prefer to watch a K vs. K aff round. But since I keep getting preffed by theory kids I guess I'm ok for the theory debate tho. I'm even starting to enjoy watching good debaters go for theory...? But only when its done very well and not frivolous.

-If you read bad theory in front of me (I know this is arbitrary, but I tend to believe that most debaters know what this means and choose to ignore it.) and the other debater tells me to gut check it in any way shape or form, hold this L real quick.

-I will not vote on permissibility skep or any argument akin to "moral decisions are irrelevant," that is explained as "the holocaust/slavery could be good bc everything is true!!1!"

-If you are reading a strategy that doesn't make its arguments until the 1AR (ie you are spamming a speech doc with incoherent cards knowing the only one that matters starts with an R and ends with an odl) you and I will not get along. I'll vote for it if you're winning it, but I'll be unhappy. Caveat: if you're debating a novice/someone without much debate experience and your 1AR is all tricks, yes I'm giving the NR leeway.

-I cuss. A lot. Sorry in advance (and if you are legitimately uncomfortable let me know and I will control my language).

-Albums I'm listening to a lot of right now include but are not limited to: Astral Weeks by Van Morrison, Live in Amsterdam by Phish, Teenage Dreaming by Stranded Civilians (relatively short EP, very worth the listen!!), Close to the Edge by Yes, 10 Day by Chance the Rapper, Blue by Joni Mitchell. If you arrive early to a round and have music recommendations for me I will massively appreciate it :)

LARP

I did policy. I'll listen to your LARP args. Specificity on Politics links is usually where I end up pulling the trigger one direction or the other because most of the time they are either the best card in the DA or the worst card in the DA.

Consult/Process/Delay CPs are cheating, but strategic cheating that you have every right to run. But the more unfair your CP the less likely I am to vote against an equally unfair perm.

Idk how I feel about judge kick. I don't love it in theory, but I also don't know how it would interact with flipping the direction of presumption, so just if you want me to do it make the argument in round.

Framework

Not super familiar with a lot of super dense philosophy. That said, if you tell me what your offense is and why I care clearly in the last speech you've got my ballot. If my lack of philosophical knowledge is a hindrance to you winning, hinder that hindrance by being clear, making sense, impacting, and explaining (see Kant joke I'm doing my best to accommodate you phil hacks). I'm slowly but surely taking more phil classes in college so my knowledge base has broadened somewhat, but still, explain it to me and we'll all be happy.

Policy framework

It makes the game work. That said, I HATE listening to bad framework debates. If I can tell you're reading someone else's prewritten backfiles and you aren't doing it well speaks won't be great. If I can identify the person who wrote your prewritten backfile I will rate how much I like that person on a scale from 1-10 and give you that many speaks. I hate listening to prescripted crappy framework debates.

THAT SAID:

Watching LASA MS go for framework honestly was one of my favorite things to do, even though I usually ran things on the other side of it. Seriously framework can be an art form.

Topicality

T is a procedural and gets evaluated first, but if there is no analysis done beyond your generic blocks I'm gonna be sad and you will too when you see your speaks. Competing interps is my default, but I can be swayed otherwise easily. I try to only evaluate what's in the round. If the aff isn't topical read T. But after the 3rd or so T interp I/We meets become reasonable to me quickly... take that as you will.

Theory

Frivolous theory makes me sad but some theory is a necessary evil. That is about as straightforward as I can say. I will listen to your theory shell. But a counter interp explaining why your interp is absurd and your abuse scenario is contrived is gonna make you sad if you are reading a frivolous shell. That said, watching a good theory debater go to work is a thing of beauty and I guess I'll watch and evaluate as such. Side note: I don't understand the obsession with the counter interp "I defend the converse of the interp." It makes it harder for me as a judge to decide these debates because sometimes I have a tough time figuring out what the world of the counterinterp looks like. It also generally lets the person making the counterinterp shift a lot, which seems pretty unfair. I'll listen to the argument, but if your opponent calls you on it, it seems pretty tough to theoretically defend.

TJFs

I actually find these very convincing when deployed alongside a traditional util framework, and I think that these are a good way for LARP debaters to have a leg to stand on against unfamiliar phil positions full of tricks or Ks that you aren't familiar with. Do I think there's a theory debate to be had over them? Sure. Is it a debate I'm willing to listen to because I think these are a good practice, but there is plenty of theoretical reasons as to why they aren't? Totally. This is also how I approach most theory issues. I will do my best to do due diligence to both positions and hear them out, and legitimately want to hear the theoretical debate about practices that may be a gray area.

Sliding Scale (the shells listed in each section are examples of the stuff I'd put in each category):

Theory I like/would not mind hearing a debate about:

-TJFs Good/Bad

-Disclosure (with MATERIAL evidence proving a violation- I won't vote on something I can't confirm)

-The neg may not read a preclusive theory shell and read multiple counterplans that include the aff (this is an example of how a 1AR theory interp against an abusive neg strategy that would fare well in front of me would look).

Theory I don't like/Will begrudgingly listen to:

-ROB spec (this serves the purpose of policy framework on topics without an agent in my mind)

-AFC

-Ridiculous spec args (Reporter Spec was not quite in this category in my mind, but it was close. That should tell you what you need to know about this)

Theory I will gut check as soon as one side tells me to:

-ACC

-must say "bracketed" when reading bracketed card ie just noting it isn't enough (bracket theory can be in any one of these three categories depending on the context, but this version will almost always be here)

-must spec status in the speech

-all neg theory are counterinterps so they must win an RVI to be offensive

One final theory note: I'll vote on any theory, this is just a scale detailing the level of work you will have to do to make me want to consider pulling the trigger for you. Feel free to facebook message me/ask me at a tournament any questions about this scale.

Ks

This is my bread and butter, but if its not yours, DON'T DO IT!!! If you know DnG like the back of your hand I'll listen to whatever you have to say about God being a lobster and Rhizomes (but the mitochondria is still the powerhouse of the cell). Even just a well executed cap K or security K is dope. But if you get up there and say "his paradigm said read Ks Imma do the thing now" and have no idea whats going on all of us will be sad. So I'll reiterate. Do you. Not what you think I want to see. Performance is also really fun to judge, but make sure you're explaining and implicating well.

Arguments I like

- Delay CP

- Ship of Theseus procedural

- RodlRodlRodlRodlRodlRodl

- time cube

- thyme cube

- aspec/ospec double bind

- fiat double bind

- Antonio 95

Arguments I don't like

- true ones

- sarcasm bad

Additionally

Triadica Sebifera.

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2024 MN Sections/State:

-For speed: I can flow the high end of rapid conversational pace and the lower end of true spreading. If you are double clutching while spreading, that is likely too fast. I will give verbal "Slow" or "Clear" instructions if needed.

-I'll vote on pretty much any argument (but tricks might not be arguments).

-Signpost Signpost Signpost. I prefer "Contention x, subpoint x" or other language that describes where in the case I should be looking over the use of only card names when extending arguments.

-Engaging in warrant comparison, describing your argument in straightforward terms, and doing specific weighing between impacts makes me happy. Quality over quantity for warrants. Write my ballot for me and you will get good speaks.

-If you are running non-traditional arguments, please read this

1. Distinct offs are highly preferred to "layified" cases where C1 is a DA and C2 is a CP ect.
2. I hold the debater that introduces the non-traditional argument to a higher standard of structure. (i.e. if you read a K, I expect labeled FW, alt, ect. but your opponent can read competition args and I will treat those as perms even if they don't say the word "perm").
3. Overall higher bar if you are reading circuit args into a traditional debater. I think theory, counterplans, and Kritiques are good for debate, but when those strategies are used to confuse and exclude your opponent that makes me sad. Don't be evasive in CX about how arguments function, and I require a more explicit delineation of why pre-fiat arguments come first in order to vote on them. The brightline will be if a typical JV debater who has never seen your argument couldn't follow why your uplayer comes first, you didn't explain it enough.

Who am I:

I'm a debater who graduated in 2018 and got a whopping total of 0 bids and competed in 0 bid rounds. I still enjoyed circuit debate, but this means I am probably not the best judge for late outrounds. Graduated from Lakeville North High School with 4 years of LD and did four years of Parli at the University of Minnesota. That most recent Parli experience shapes a lot of what I think about debate. The other important disclosure is I do not keep up with the circuit generally so I am not going to be as up on the current LD meta.

Things I like:

Engagement! I'm going to like rebuttals that don't just sail past the prior speech based on some prewritten frontlines, but instead address the core issues that the other side brings up.

Respect also goes a long way. Debate is an important space and when people act in good faith it makes me happy.

Analytic extensions. I debated in Parli where carded evidence isn't a thing, I find it much easier to follow a straightforward couple sentence explanation than words cut from different parts of a paper where they might not reach the same conclusion that the powertag on top of the card would suggest they do.

Things I don't like:

Being deliberately difficult to engage with. Dodging CX questions with vague answers when in the next speech you all of a sudden can articulate the thesis of your arguments in very concise and definitive language is not debating, it's running from engagement (and cowardice is a voting issue). Don't rely on your opponent not understanding your arguments well enough so you win.

Relying on the speech doc to get arguments across. My personal belief is that the speech doc is to make sure you don't clip cards and give the judge and opponent something to look back on as a record of what was said, but I see it be used more and more as something that lets debaters artificially inflate their WPM by decreasing the clarity by which they speak and letting the doc pick up the slack. The doc doesn't argue, you do.

Specific arguments:

These are all just preferences. I think saying "I'm Tab" doesn't mean anything, but I will try to intervene as little as possible. That being said here are some mindsets I have coming into the round. Unless otherwise noted I can and will vote on any argument presented, some bars just might be higher than others.

LARPing - This is how I debated most of the time, so I like to see it done well, and a CP 2DA neg strat is always fun to watch.

Tricks - If you rely on aprioris or weirdly worded spike that are extended as game over issues I'm probably not your judge. I won't reject you on face but my interp of the burden of rejoinder (the thing that makes dropped args true) is that if the first reading of an argument was shifty or arbitrary, even if none of that argument was addressed in the following speech by your opponent, a new characterization or explanation of that argument is just that: new. This means I am significantly more lenient to responses to blips that get blown up. However, if these arguments are clearly labeled as voting issues the first speech that they are read then a lot of my reservations about this style of debate are alleviated. This goes back to prior notes about avoiding engagement.

Phil - Label everything. I probably don't understand Kant or whoever as well as you do so implicating the important parts of the case as soon as possible make it a lot easier for me to track. I think well done phil can be leveraged well against anything but making these arguments as clear as possible helps me a lot. I think phil is often used by tricky debaters so see above to make sure I don't get sad with you.

Ks - Ks are cool! I didn't read a lot of them in high school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them in front of me. What is does mean is that I don't know the lit and buzzwords are useless. I am familiar with some Cap, Ableism, Anti-blackness, Setcol and Neocol lit bases (in that order) but mostly in a conceptual level not a "I've read the book" level. I know some surface level info about a tiny bit of pomo things, but that please do not assume I know what your buzzwords mean. To make me love you and your K, explain it to me in simple, concise terms. I would prefer a paragraph analytic tag about what it means to find lines of flight than a D&G card cut in language I don't understand. This also applies to alts, I'd really like to know what the alt does. If it's a mindset shift, cool let me know. If it's micropol rejection, cool tell me that's what it is. I think the best alts also incorporate post fiat offense i.e read "Endorse Violent Socialist Revolution" in front of me instead of "Interrogate the epistemology of the aff through a lens of historical materialism."

Role of the Ballots- I find it really hard to frame any offense out of the debate. I default to "Vote for who did the better debating. Everything else is just impact weighing." That being said, if you are winning reasons why your role of the ballot is good it make it a lot easier for your impacts to outweigh those of your opponents, but I don't think it moots them entirely absent arguments that the impacts for their RoB don't matter (i.e. conceded fiat illusory claims means without arguments about how fiated impacts have importance outside of the imaginary will let me completely ignore the extinction claims of an aff)

Theory - Multiple frivolous theories are not good, you can read your spec args or whatever theory shell that might be strategic but probably doesn't actually impact the meta model of debate but reading more than one of these just seems like you are reading a lot of low risk uplayering offence that skirts clash in favor of dropped tidbits. I default to Competing Interps, Theory is top layer, no RVIs but my bar for aff getting RVIs is much lower than neg getting RVIs. Condo is on a round per round basis, but multiple condo are probably not the best, PICs can be good or bad, spec is boring.

Non-Topical/K Affs - I used to absolutely hate these, but I most certainly do not now. I think they are a good part of debate and allow people to take back power, so I will absolutely vote for a non-topical aff but see my notes on Ks and K lit. If you happen to be debating an affirmative that is not topical, FW will work if you win it even if I'm not happy that you read it, but if the aff is disclosed please at least answer some of case. That being said I don't think theory is inherently violent and that means there are smarter interps that don't have to indite the ability of these types of affs to exist in debate but can challenge the specific implementation of a given non-t aff. I.e. must defend fiat but not necessarily resolutional fiat, may not garner offense off a rejection of the resolution (but can off non resolutional things), no Utopian fiat ect. I would also recommend counter methods (and I am a bit partial to the argument that there are no perms in a methods debate) or method piks as long as you actually engage in questions of the affirmative I will probably be happy.

Misc:

Speed - I can listen to you if you are clear. I'd put myself at about 6/10 of top speed, but this being said be careful with blippy args. Not only would I rather hear 2 actually warranted case turns, I probably will not flow half of your twelve point case dump if each of the twelve are only one sentence answers.

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

1. Know what you are talking about. Being well versed in the lit is a great way to make me like you.

2. Jokes. Tournaments are long and can get boring so if I laugh that is a good thing.

3. Be nice.

4. Be organized, if you are all over the place that is a bad thing

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

I debated LD for 3 years at Rosemount high school. I coached LD novices at Rosemount for 2 years. I think the best debates are the ones that are heavily involving the value and criterion. I think it is important to weigh all arguments, and to have clash against your opponent. One of my biggest criticisms in varsity debate is that the debate can often become unorganized, so I definitely value organization and it plays a large role into speaker points. I am okay with speed and theory, as long as they are used with a purpose and not just to impress me/ confuse your opponent. This said, I don't find frivolous theory useful. In order for the debate to remain clear for me, I need the upper level jargon terms to be defined by the debater, so that I can follow along. Since I work with novices, I am not always familiar with every term. I am okay with pretty much every argument, as long as it is not offensive. I do not appreciate rudeness either, please be respectful at all times to me and your opponent.

Hi! I’m Christian. I did traditional LD in high school and debated for two years on the ASU policy team. I used to coach the LD team at Minnetonka High School. I really enjoy judging debate, and I hope you enjoy having me as a judge.

- Put me on the email chain: hilgemannc@gmail.com

- I'll evaluate any properly extended claim that has a warrant and impact/implication as long as it isn't bigoted or a personal attack.

- That being said, I place a lot of value on argument quality and explanation. This means that rather than assuming that every argument starts at 100% risk, the weight I give each of your arguments is dependent on how well you've justified them. If you want me to evaluate something, you should make sure that it has a clear warrant and implication in every speech that you bring it up.

- I've decided that I'm going to stop evaluating spreading. Now that tournaments are online, how well I can understand you is dependent on whether or not you can afford high-speed internet access and a nice microphone in addition to how skilled you are, which is bad. Considering this, I don't think I can justify trying to keep up with anything beyond a fast conversational pace - if you exceed what I see as reasonable I'll stop flowing and say "speed" until you slow down. If you don't slow down, I'll eventually just give up and stop listening to your arguments altogether.

- If you're a progressive/circuit debater and you're debating a traditional debater/someone who is significantly less experienced than you, you should adjust your style so that there can be an actual debate. You're going to have to use your best judgment here, but if you read arguments that your opponent clearly won't be prepared to engage with, I'm likely to drop your speaks or intervene against you. The same thing applies if you're super condescending or rude.

Theory:

- I default to reasonability, and it will be tough to convince me otherwise. I'm almost never going to vote for theory that I think is frivolous, but if you think there's legit abuse you should go for it.

- I'm pretty bad at judging a lot of the more technical aspects of theory debates in LD. I'd recommend focusing primarily on the standards level and not assuming that I'm already familiar with the content of your arguments / the jargon you're using.

Kritiks:

- I mostly debated Ks in college, but don't assume that I'll fill in gaps for you or that I'm familiar with your lit (I'm probably not). Basically, make sure that you can fully explain your arguments in terms that a normal person can understand.

- I think that K affs should defend some sort of departure from the status quo (unless you have a really dope explanation for why you don't need to). If I don't know what the aff does at the end of the round, I'm very open to voting on presumption.

Tricks:

- These are bad please stop.

- I'm unlikely to vote on skep because there's usually a risk of offense.

- New implications are new arguments and can be responded to as such.

Background. Total rounds debated in HS: 5 policy, 2 LD. Coach since 1987, policy and LD. B.A. double major history/economics, M.A. history. Currently teach AP US history, AP US government, AP Comparative Gov and AP Micro & Macro Econ. Published author (history). Mostly coaching novice in recent years, so probably a few years behind in national circuit trends. I'll listen, but they may need more explanation.

(Update January 2024: I have not been coaching this year and will be a bit rusty. Not clueless, but any new theories or trends will need a bit more explanation. My flowing speed may also be down about 5-10%.)

I'd prefer not to be on an email chain. I want to listen to the arguments. You also increase the chance for me to intervene if I think your evidence is lined down in a sketchy or unethical way.

I believe that the debaters should be allowed to debate the arguments that they think are best suited to the resolution and the opponent's arguments. Semi-tabula rasa, probably default to comparative worlds unless you give me a reason not to. Feel free to do so.

While I will attempt to render a fair ballot on whatever arguments are presented in the round, I do have some policies or preferences.

I contend that debaters should actually sound like they know what they are talking about. With novice debaters I will act as a patient teacher. With varsity debaters I will have less sympathy with a debater who is reading a position they clearly do not understand.

Debates should feature clash, and both debaters have an obligation to argue positions which are open to clash. Ideally, these positions should at least attempt to engage the resolution. I will listen to narratives, but as these generally avoid clash on anything but a theory level, they are less preferred. I am not fond of narratives or other positions that essentially guilt the judge into voting for a debater. Just because I didn't vote for your narrative doesn't mean I reject you or your identity or your position. It is not ok to equate my ballot with me being an oppressor. Plans and counterplans are valid in LD debate, but they must be run properly. I judged (nat circuit) policy from 1997 to 2009, if that's any help.

I will listen to theory positions and enjoy a well thought out theory debate. Kind of. I insist that you actually engage the theory debate on its merits. I dislike rounds in which a ton of theory crap is tossed out hoping the opponent will miss some tiny little spike which is then blown up to monumental proportions in rebuttals. Just because you call something an absolute voting issue doesn't mean it is. I am much more likely to vote for a person winning on the substantive issues even if they allegedly mishandled the third subpoint on an RVI.

I will be extremely reluctant to "drop the debater" except in cases of in-round misconduct. Debate is about arguments, not people. A claim of "drop the debater" better have a lot of support and can't just be one more response on your list of bullet points. I will consider intervening against this argument.

I am willing to listen to other pre-fiat arguments such as Kritiks. Again, you need to understand the position and it should be germane. I tend to believe that most kritiks should have a viable alternative, but would be willing to listen to a claim that they don't.

Last Updated: 2/17/22

High school: MLK Magnet/Nashville UDL (2015-2019)

College: Brown University (2019-2023.5)

Email (Add me to the chain): Kaita.Igarashi@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

About me:

Hey what's up! I am an undergrad at Brown University who is studying Modern Culture & Media. In high school, I highly specialized in reading Puar, but I also went for Moten, Orientalism, and Set Col. Sometimes, I would read a soft-left aff and a more conventional neg strategy when it was required.

For Online Debate:

Spreading is only ok if BOTH you AND your opponent are good with it. Especially with online debates, spreading is only really accessible to those with good internet speeds and other resources like microphones, which is bad.

IF both teams are good with spreading, please only go at most 70% as fast as in person debates otherwise I'll probably miss a lot. If you're going too fast, I'll say "speed" a few times, and if you don't slow down, I'll stop flowing completely.

If you debate for a UDL:

Let me know, and I will give you any cards you ask for. Also feel more than free to reach out for strategy advice--I very much remember the frustration of being a UDL team going against schools with tons of coaches & resources.

=========Policy Paradigm=========

TLDR:

I prefer K debate, but I'd much rather you debate with whatever style you're comfortable with than trying to over-adapt to me (any good debate>bad K debate).

Truth>Tech. However, the further ahead you are on the technical debate, the lower my bar is for a truth claim. That being said, I do value a more focused, in-depth approach over blippy rebuttals with no story (judges aren't robots!).

At the end of the round, I'll vote for the best argument(s) on the central question of the debate. If neither team has a fully developed argument (claim, warrant, impact) by the time I'm writing my ballot, then I'll probably make a decision that neither team will like.

Preferences:

Examples are the way that you win ballots

Cards are usually overrated

We love clash

We love good pathos

Try not to be rude

Will give extra speaks for good prep time music

K-Affs/Framework:

I mostly read K affs in high school, but I also read framework on the neg so...

On both sides try to make sure that you are fully impacting out your arguments by the end of the debate. Fairness by itself is not an intrinsic impact.

For Aff: I think that you should probably defend a shift from the status quo.

-If you go for the counter-interpretation debate, then you should already have a coherent vision of what debate looks like under your interp for the rest of the year (i.e. tell me concretely what types of affs are included and which are excluded).

For Neg: if you only read the generic framework or framework/cap, I will only give you a maximum of 29.5 speaker points because more than that for me requires that I know that you've fully engaged with the other team's scholarship. I'll still vote on it but you might not get the speaker points that you wanted.

-I tend to view the TVA debate less as a CP vs. plan debate and more so as a theoretical argument for why a version of the aff is possible in the neg's interp.

-I'm probably more likely to be swayed by movement building standards (or really any exportable skills or methods) over vague appeals to standards that are intrinsic to debate.

-I won't vote on the small schools DA is you're from a big school.

Ks:

I am probably following you on most arguments, but this just means that I have a higher standard for your explanation. Be careful with reading too much jargon--Kritiks should never be exclusionary and only for those who "get it."

I find most "role of the ballot" arguments quite arbitrary and usually just an assertion of impact framing. Generally "role of the judge" arguments are more convincing for me because they tend to contain A. a warrant for why this framing is important and B. a coherent vision for what I should do with this framework. If you are able to contain both of those elements in a "role of the ballot" then I'll go for it. That being said, I still think framework is a very underrated argument for a neg k team to go for if you can pull it off.

Usually when I vote against the K, it is because the neg failed to do adequate link work to show why their theory of power implicates the aff.

CPs, DAs, T, etc.:

Even though I like K debate, I'm pretty comfortable with "policymaking" arguments. Just make sure that you have a coherent story and link chain by the end of the debate. If you end up missing internal-link(s), I won't give you the impact.

A substantial amount of these types of debates come down to impact framing for me.

Theory:

I'm bad at super techy theory debates, but if there's an argument that you really think is important then by all means go for it.

If you do, however, I'd appreciate it if you didn't spread through 15 subpoints at 400 wpm.

My range of reasonability changes significantly depending on what circuit I'm judging (e.g. I will probably allow more condo in the nat circuit than a locals)

==========LD Paradigm==========

I judge LD like policy except for the following:

Y'all have got to stop reading terrible arguments like tricks--seriously--if you still want to run theory 1. I default to reasonability (I won't vote on frivolous theory) 2. I really shouldn't have to say this, but I won't give you the arg if you don't have a coherent warrant 3. fairness is an internal link to education.

I like K debate, but I don't have much knowledge with philosophy debates (what is a Kant???)

I have a high threshold for evidence in LD. If you read an under-highlighted card that doesn't contain warrants or use a misrepresenting tag, I will not evaluate it.

Impact framing is very important to me. Even if both teams agree on a value/criteria you still need to tell me why you access that best.

I evaluate rounds on an offense/defense paradigm, which means if you aren't carrying any offense args into your last speech then I probably won't vote for you. I find a lot of my ballots these days being like "I vote [aff/neg] on a risk of offense b/c the [insert other team] didn't extend any offensive args through all of their speeches." Break the cycle. Read impacts. Read offense.

I believe in tabula rasa and judge non-interventionism. I'll take the path of least resistance to my RFD, so if you do the heavy lifting on impacting and weighing, I will reward that. Above all, I want to see why arguments matter in upholding the framework. I do also consider and enjoy theory.

In general, I like actual debate with actual conflict—which debater can show me a better world? I admire clever arguments over esoteric ones, especially where framework is involved.

The best debater is the one who makes convincing, well-reasoned arguments, without spreading a thousand words a minute. After all, rhetoric is not just what you say—it's also how you say it.

Above all else, remember to extend offense that links to the winning framework and outweighs your opponent's offense.

Please be kind and respectful to each other, or it'll go straight to your speaks.

Happy debating!

Pronouns: he/him/his

I come from a circuit LD background, BUT I have not judged on the circuit in several years.

Debated LD for Apple Valley High School for four years, class of '09.
Worked at various summer institutes from 2009-2014.

I have not flowed speed in awhile, and wasn't that great with it to begin with, so proceed with caution. I will yell clear once. Slow down for tags and author names.

I strongly prefer debates centered around the topic as a question of comparative worlds/ policymaking, ideally rooted in good evidence from the topic literature. If you are choosing to approach the topic differently, the burden of responsibility is on you to explain and clearly develop your ballot story. I won't vote for anything that I don't understand, or if I don't understand the function of the argument within the round.

Don't be tricky or shady.

I have a fairly high threshold for what constitutes a complete extension-- make sure that you're re-explaining a developed and warranted link story in your rebuttals.

I am willing to listen to theory debates, but I am not excited about it and prefer to see theory used as a check on actual abuse. Be very explicit in terms of the function of your theory arguments. I am frankly not particularly interested in spending my free time thinking about all of the nuances of various theory debate norms and practices, so make arguments about how I should evaluate things rather than making assumptions about how I ought to be doing it.

The things we say in debate rounds matter. I can't stand rudeness, and I will drop you if you run offensive arguments. I will not accept advocacies or frameworks (that the debater admits) say that suffering, genocide, etc. are good.

Be nice to one another. Be smart. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Good luck!

he/him

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

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

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

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

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

I hold the line.

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

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

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

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

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

Specific arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eagan '21

Emory '25

Hi! My name is Ankitha and I debated LD at Eagan High School.

I debated mostly on the local circuit but I did go to some nat circuit tournaments each year. I like hearing both traditional and progressive arguments so do whatever you enjoy the most!

Important

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/xenophobic etc, I will drop you and tank your speaks. Please don’t do it.

Traditional Stuff

I am pretty comfortable with most traditional arguments. Make sure all of your arguments have claims, warrants, and impacts. Don’t try to extend everything in the 2NR/ 2AR, only go for what’s important. I don’t care very much about the value debate but make sure you link your arguments back to the winning criteria. Weird arguments are totally okay with me!

Circuit Stuff

CPs/ DAs- These are the arguments I am most comfortable with and is what I went for at circuit tournaments. Make sure your link chain is clear and I should be able to evaluate them.

Phil/ Framework - I’m not too great with Phil. I’ve pretty much only went for util/ structural violence so those are the frameworks I’m most comfortable with. If you have a dense framework, make sure to slow down and explain super clearly. Please go slower on the phil debates so I can understand!

Ks- I am comfortable with most stock Ks but high theory and narratives confuse me. I will still evaluate any critical argument you make to the best of my ability, just over-explain if you’re reading a denser K.

T/Theory- I am comfortable with T and feel good about evaluating it. I haven’t gone for theory much in rounds but as long as you slow down and don’t try to read a bunch of shells, I can probably keep up.

Other

• Feel free to speak fast, I will say slow or clear if necessary.

• Make sure to weigh!!

• One good argument > Many meh arguments

• Slow down on tags and author names

• Signpost clearly about where you are

Speaks

I start at a 28 and move up or down based on strategy and clarity.

I love new song recommendations. If you give me a recommendation in the beginning of the round, I'll listen to it during prep and increase your speaks if I like it!

Please be nice! Debate should be fun!

Hi! I'm Maddie K-M (she/her), and I was a coach at Edina High School for 3 years, where I debated for 4 years. I still help out at tournies and as such find myself judging as well. My email is mattkumarmontei@gmail.com (yeah i know) and I'd like to be on the speech doc, but i'm also not gonna look at it until after the round.

tl;dr for prefs:

topical K - 1

non-topical K, Phil, Policy - 2

everything else - 3

I'll evaluate anything that isn't violent/exclusionary, but I really really don't like tricks or friv theory. I'm most familiar with K's and phil and they are my favorites but I also like policy and anything else as long as it is warranted well and clearly. I prefer K's to be topical. If you're going to spread, don't go your top speed and you better be very clear, because I am past the stage in my life where I am willing to flow of the speech doc. If I don't understand it as spoken, it is not going on the flow.remember, I am not active in debate much anymore, so I am not super used to hearing ppl speak this fast...

Preferences -- I was mostly a K debater in High School, but I'll evaluate any argument. Please don't read friv theory or tricks in front of me. I'm more open to theory with a convincing abuse story, but round reports disclosure is not that story. The stuff I read was mostly cap Ks and climate cap, set-col, psychoanalysis, and combinations of the former args. Psychoanalysis (Lacan specifically) is a favorite area of mine, but I have seen a LOT of bad psychoanalysis in my time in debate (and out of it lol) so I will be harsh on it. I'm also currently a philosophy major in college lol so I like hearing phil args, but you have to be able to articulate args in your own words/without jargon. Even if I am personally partial to a thinker/field of thought, I won't do extra work to vote for something that I personally believe. Also, I think attitudes towards theory in general are uncritical at best (why do we default to util when evaluating theory standards?) so i'm super down for uplayering/cross-applying your substance to theory provided you can warrant it.

Spreading -- While in principle I don't hate spreading, there's a problem in LD of people spreading incomprehensibly and everyone pretending they can understand (i might just be a noob but ). unless you are going to actually be clear with your words, don't spread in front of me; this problem is exacerbated online, and I don't want to have to say clear in round, so I am just going to drop your speaks if I can't understand you -- this goes for case and rebuttals. I'd rather hear understandable substance than a rushed case with 5 theory spikes at the bottom.

General Other Stuff:

You can (and should!) be funny and have a personality in-round, but never be condescending or mean. I will drop you/your speaks if you say anything racist, transphobic, sexist, ableist, or bigoted in any capacity.

I try to do my speaker points based on strategy and not just how pretty you sound. That means time allocation and general organization are important.

I don't care much for spikes. I get why people read them and I'm not gonna disregard them prima facie but I have a low threshold for them being answered.

Also, please collapse! Tell me what actually matters and why it matters -- I am not great with messy flows. Judge direction helps with this too, take me on a fun little journey through the flow, all the way to the ballot!

Most of all, don't stress out and remember it's just a round. Your mental health should take priority over any competition and if you need anything in the round to be different, never hesitate to say something/ask. Don't feel pressured to take yourself too seriously, this is a silly activity with silly norms and silly rules.

Feel free to ask me questions at any time, even about my decision (as long as you don't like .. aggressively and rudely post round me) and remember that I've been in your shoes and I just want to see people learning, succeeding, and having a good time :D.

Hi y'all!

I did PF at East Ridge HS in MN for 3 years and graduated in 2019. Did both mostly local debate but both nat circuit and local stuff for speech. I've judged a variety of PF and LD in the past. However, I am pretty busy with college so my topic literacy is very mediocre, I can pick up arguments quickly but you should explain them well.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Some quick things about me as a judge:

- I'm fine with speed, just be aware that the faster you go the less information I flow

- Win the round with clean extensions, both warrant and impact

- I prefer cohesive summary + FF combos so if you want me to vote on an argument it should be in both speeches

- Warranting is great (please extend + explain them with cards). Please warrant, you could have the best evidence about [blank] impact but if you don't have a reason as to why's that true, I'm not going to evaluate it in my RFD.

- Weighing is also great! It makes the round a lot easier for not only you but me as well

- I prefer no defence in 1st summary and prefer that you try to respond to turns in 2nd rebuttal instead

- Please give a roadmap and signpost

- I have an extremely rudimentary understanding of non-traditional args (ex: theory shells, Ks, etc.) so an explanation is appreciated

- I will call for cards and if you misconstrue evidence I will drop that piece of evidence. Please note that if a ton of your evidence is misconstrued I will intervene on evidence ethics. Please have your cards ready to share with your opponents and/or me if necessary.

Other:

Please be respectful. I'm a firm believer in the fact that you are a person before you are a debater and I'll penalize you in speaks and possibly on the ballot if there's anything that comes up.

On the other hand, please do let me know if you have any concerns (especially in this new online format) and don't hesitate to voice those concerns or questions to me either before or during the round.

Also, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my ballot through email at lu000227@umn.edu

Have fun and good luck!

Hello! My name is Calvin McMahon. I am one of the LD debate coaches at Wayzata High School. Before coaching at Wayzata, I debated LD at Champlin Park High School for five years and served as a volunteer instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute for four years. Just writing this paradigm to lay out a few preferences:

• First and foremost, The style of debate and argumentation that is most comfortable to you is probably the style you should use in a round. Twisting yourself into knots to appease a judge is generally a bad idea.

• No need to include me on any email chains!

• Yes I can handle speed/spreading, but in general, the faster you read, the less persuasive I find you. Slower speaking gives me more space to process your arguments emotionally.

• No, I will not tell you to slow down in a round.

• I will not inherently vote against theory, but my burden of proof on those arguments is high, Especially on disclosure theory, which I think should only apply where undeniable issues of equity exist.

• I will not inherently vote against a K but I ask that you as a debater engage in these issues of social justice in good faith as opposed to using them as a cudgel to surprise opponents.

• I will not inherently vote against plans/counter-plans, but I believe that 90% of them could just be normal cases and are needlessly confusing as they are.

• I don't care if you sit or stand.

• If you think you can use your opponent's framework, you probably should.

• Most importantly, always be as kind and courteous to your opponent as possible. Do not laugh at them. Use the correct pronouns. Err on the side of caution when cutting them off in cx.

I debated policy and then switched to LD on the national circuit as part of GBN's team and have since coached policy at various high schools across the country. I can handle any speed, as long as its clear and you slow down tags. I have a philosophy degree focusing on language, ethics, and political philosophy. This means that I have likely read most of your authors and that if you want to run moralistic based arguments or K's in front of me, make sure to do them well. In my opinion the most important thing in an argument is its warrants. Thus, if you fail to mention the "why" when extending, I'm going to have a hard time evaluating your argument. As long as you do this, I don't care whether you run personal narratives, bring a painting into the room for your K, etc.

If there is a place where it's easy to vote off of, that's where I'll look to. So if one part of the flow has been cleanly extended the entire time while another part has ink from both sides, I will more than likely vote off of the first part.

I'll be honest, even though I competed in public forum for some time, I'm still a pretty lay judge.

If you make clear arguments with impacts that link and are not a jerk, you will get high speaker points and will likely win the round.

Good luck to everyone competing and I hope you enjoy your day!

Speaks

1. Speak as fast as you want but sloppiness will cost you.

2. Keep it clear and concise.

3. I base my speaker points mainly on how a speaker conducts themselves in cross examination.

Content:

1. Arguments made in cross fire should be reiterated in speeches because I won't flow it.

2. I'll listen to anything, but it’s good to know that I am not the best judge for niche kritiks and cases.

3. signpost-signpost-signpost. If you don't do this I'll assume its been dropped.

4. At a minimum frontline offense in second rebuttal

5. I will not consider arguments that are not discussed in every speech up to the final focus.

5. I will give arguments the weight that you do. If you say something is important, prove why.

I love a good fight so if you bring anything racist, offensive, homophobic into this space you will lose and I will immediately let you know why.

I am a teacher who had not been connected to the world of debate until now. I come to my first year of judging with open mind. I will try my best to understand your argument, but I will appreciate it if you make it as clear as possible.

Looking forward to meeting your brilliant minds!

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

competed for 3 years in debate, currently coaching novices on the Minnetonka team. she/her pronouns, cool with framework and contention debate. Use gender neutral language when referring to your opponent please. I'll be able to follow your arguments, but signpost and use extensions anyway. No spreading, and case sharing is preferred but not required.

I have been judging for two years, primarily LD; but, at the core, I am still a lay judge. I vote more on tech than truth. If you defend your argument with REASONABLE points, and your opponent does not refute it, then your argument will stand.

At the end of the day, remember the following points:

1. Don’t spread— If I can’t understand your argument, then I won’t vote for it.

2. Be Reasonable— While LD is not an evidence based debate, don’t make unreasonable claims or present unreasonable (aka untrue) evidence.

3. Make impacts— Explain WHY you are right and your opponents are wrong.

4. Be respectful— Don’t yell, and obviously no foul or disrespectful language.

In conclusion, be clear, persuasive, and HAVE FUN.

The following isn't really a paradigm but some background information that may help the debaters that I have the privilege to judge. I've been very reluctant to publish this, but I realize that it may be useful so here it goes. I was a policy debater (state level) many decades ago and have been judging policy and LD since 2016. I have a strong preference to not judge varsity level because I have not kept up with debate and argumentation theory over the decades and I am not a coach. As would be expected I find varsity level debate often gets into these types of argumentations that I am not familiar with. With that said I don't inherently discount any type of argument or style but how I judge such arguments or the terms I use to describe may be limited. I do not accept/review files unless some type of ethics issue develops, and I would also consult the Tab Room in those situations. I am fine with speed to certain level and in general if a debater is consistently gasping for breath that is too fast for me. When citing evidence after initial reference refer to the argument and not the source as I don't track/flow sources.

I have done Policy debate for 2 years and LD for 1. I will pretty much accept any argument as long as you can explain it.

Hi y'all! I'm Michelle. I debated in LD for four years for Rosemount High School, so LD is where I feel most comfortable judging.

Overall notes: I won't tolerate racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic/ableist/other discriminatory and offensive conduct in the debate space. I will stop the round if I deem necessary. Just don't do it, okay?

Trigger warnings are important to me. Make sure you use them.

Argumentation: Honestly I don't want to constrain the types of arguments you run, but there are types of argumentation that I am less familiar with, so be cautious running those on me, as I might not evaluate them as a judge with more familiarity would. That being said, here are my opinions about types of arguments (in order of familiarity):

Traditional LD (contentions, observations, value/criterion, etc): I'm pretty confident in my abilities in these genre of argument, but if you're working with a less common or more specific version of a common framework, explanation is key.

CPs/DAs: Provided the link chain is clear, I should be okay with these.

Topicality/T: Here's where it starts to get a little fuzzy. I've run and hit T before, but it's never been a go-to argument for me. However, I will evaluate it if it's been warranted well and lacks argument against it. However, be cautious because I will also give people who are unfamiliar with T the benefit of the doubt if they don't run counter-T in the typical structure because I generally care more about the arguments said than the formatting.

Special note for disclosure theory: You have a low probability of winning this argument if you run it. As someone who rarely debated outside of MN, disclosure was a concept I didn't know much about, so I give the benefit of the doubt to students on local circuits or from smaller/newer debate programs who might not have known about disclosure of cases on the wiki. You can call me biased, but don't say I didn't warn you on this one.

K's/Narratives/all else: These confused me when I debated, so I might not be the best judge for these types of cases. I'll still try and evaluate them, but I can't guarantee that I'll follow the many layers the arguments function on. If you think you can make it clear to me, feel free to run it, but know the risk.

Speaker points: An average for me is a 27.5/30 on speaks.

Here are some ways to gain points: make good arguments, be courteous to your opponent, ask insightful questions (or answer insightfully) in cross, have confidence in speaking, etc.

Here are some ways to lose points: being patronizing to your opponent, making people feel unwanted or unsafe in the round or the debate space as a whole, etc.

Speed: The clearer you are, the faster you can go. Per usual, slow down for tags and card names if you want me to actually follow your argument, especially if you plan on just referring to card names for the remainder of the round. I'll yell "clear" or "speed" twice before I stop flowing.

Other: Anything that didn't fit into the aforementioned categories

I tend to avoid disclosing decisions unless specifically told to disclose by the tournament.

In the end, I trust my flow when evaluating the round. Thus, it is imperative that you are clear and organized no matter what you are running. Even if your opponent doesn't point out an extension through ink or a new in the 2 argument, if that's what my flow shows, I'm not evaluating it.

If I'm on my laptop more after the first few speeches, it's cause I'm filling out the ballot with comments of what I've noticed from the first few speeches or the one you're currently on. I'm trying to avoid making the tournament run late, but I also love leaving thorough critiques. Don't worry, though, I am still keeping up with arguments.

I believe in science. Climate change is real and I doubt I'll be convinced that the opposite is true.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I participated in policy debate in high school (back when it was the National Forensic League) and college (CEDA).

I have judged LD as a "parent judge" since 2020.

I believe the purpose of debate is to learn the art of effective oral advocacy. Sometimes that means figuring out how to best persuade a judge that you do not know much about. Sometimes that means figuring out how to best reach a panel of judges with a variety of debate experiences and backgrounds.

I do not necessarily mind speed/spreading if it is comprehensible. Slurring out incomprehensible syllables does not count.

Counterplans, theory, etc., are not off limits. Still, they need to be persuasive. If you want to argue Thanos Was Right, be my guest and give it a try, but remember that I gave up my Saturday to volunteer to listen to this.

My most frequent ballot or post-round observation of where debaters sometimes fall short is failing to use final rebuttal to crystallize the round and give me of why I should vote FOR YOU. You should be able to boil it down to a succinct "elevator pitch" I will remember of why I should vote for you. Telling me why I should vote AGAINST THE OTHER SIDE is not the same thing. I want to vote FOR something, not just that the other side dropped your so-and-so card and I have to extend it across.

Rudeness, excessive cockiness, etc., are not persuasive and will not be tolerated.

At the end of the day, I want debaters to have fun, learn about the world's pressing problems, and learn something about themselves along the way.

Assistant coach for Apple Valley, fourth year out, debated for four years. I spend most of the season judging local MN tournaments. My favorite types of debates are quality traditional rounds. Clashing, weighing, impacting, extending, and comparing evidence are fantastic ways to get my ballot. If you and your opponent are sending speech docs, include me: corirobertsmn@icloud.com

Notes:

* Number your arguments and signpost. I evaluate the round based heavily on the flow.

* Policy args (plans, CPs, DAs, etc.) are fine. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not great at evaluating intense theory, K, or phil debates. I hate a prioris, skep, tricks, and spikes.

* No, I won't flow off your speech doc. I'll only open it if I have a specific concern about a specific piece of evidence after the round.

* I'm fine with moderate amounts of speed only if you're clear. I'll yell clear twice, then put down my pen if I still can't understand. Usually, I find that my issue with spreading isn't speed but clarity (I'm atrocious at understanding you if you aren't clear or if you mumble).

* Asking me questions after round is totally cool and I encourage it bc it's great for learning, but aggressive post-rounding is not okay. If you have to wonder whether something qualifies as aggressive post-rounding, it probably does.

* Be nice! I will drop you or lower your speaker points if I think you're super rude or mean to your opponent.

* Important for nationally competitive debaters: make sure the round is something with which your opponent can engage. If you're a successful circuit debater and your opponent is a significantly less experienced JVer or novice, but you make the round inaccessible for them by spreading way too fast or running something they can't reasonably be expected to engage with, I will probably lower your speaker points and may even drop you. If you're the better debater, you should be able to win anyways :)

Updated October 2nd, 2021

I did LD and PF in high school, but I am almost certainly rusty now. I am fine with speed so long as you're clear, but add me to the email chain if you're going fast (300 wpm is definitely fast for me).

In front of me you're probably best off focusing on the line by line, though I would much appreciate it if you make weighing arguments in later speeches.

Would also like to see more evidence comparison, or at least detailed arguments on warrants. If I hear plausible evidence that says the US heg deters conflict with China and plausible evidence that US heg causes war with China, I will most likely evaluate it as neutral unless someone gives me a justification to prefer one piece of evidence over the other.

Feel free to make any arguments that you can warrant well. I prefer phil or policy debates, but kritiks or theory are fine. I think a lot of theory debates are unwarranted and blippy but if theory is the best way to engage an argument then go for it. For kritiks just make sure the arguments are understandable without having read through the literature, at least for more obscurantist authors like Deleuze. If I don't find an argument well warranted or plausible I will be much less happy to vote on it and will accept weaker answers.

bjschmitt1@hotmail.com

Formerly a varsity LD coach in Minnesota (over 10 years ago). I believe value debate is and should be distinct from policy debate. It's fine to talk about real-world implications, but more often than not, too much emphasis on solvency misses the point of what we 'ought' to do vs. what a policymaker would need to do.

Debating what we 'ought' to do should allow debaters more freedom to discuss the values behind our decision-making, instead of focusing on the practicality and implementation (that is why we have policy debate).

The function of the criteria is to help weigh the round - if you and your opponent have the same criteria, that doesn't 'wash' it out of the round - it *should* make for a cleaner debate as both sides agree on the weighing mechanism, but then you need to be really clear about how your side wins using that mechanism. If each side has a different criteria, then it is important to tell me why yours is better AND apply it throughout your case.

I appreciate a thoughtful case which is well-founded in research. I do expect the debate to focus on the core resolution; kritiks need to have a strong link.

Moderately fast speed is fine - I can keep up; but if your definition of 'spreading' is to read at an incomprehensible speed, I don't find it contributes to a healthy debate.

I decide based on the arguments on my flow - substance over style.

Noah Schrick
Experience: 5 years of high school debate at Tulsa-Union (OK), volunteer for UDL in Tulsa (TDL).
Email: nschrick98@gmail.com

Paradigm –
Game-playing.

Policy/Traditional Affs –
No objection to these. I think these can be some of the most developed and strategic affs. That being said, shady or loose internal links is a pretty easy way for me to vote neg on presump.

Topicality –
All for it. 5 minutes of T in the 2NR is a very fun, legitimate strat. If you do go for T, be sure to impact your standards out. In addition, don't just make blanket, generic impact claims such as, "this is bad for education." I think that education and fairness are impacts, but also internal links to external issues. Why is education important? Why should we care about fairness? Be sure to explain these for extra speaks and a better T debate.
Refer to speed section.

Theory –
Also all for it. I’ll vote for any theory argument as long as you can fully explain why I should vote for it. Granted, I'll have a higher threshold for a crazy, off the wall arg, however I will still vote for it if it is explained well enough and impacted out.
I default to reject the arg unless there is substantial work done to explain why I should go otherwise, or there is a prejudice made by a team that is interfering with the debate.
Refer to speed section.

Framework –
Will gladly vote on it. I do think RoBs are arbitrary, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that it can win an argument, but I guess I'm open to it if you can convince me why a drop is game-changing. Both teams usually present them in a way to exclude the other. Majority of the time, no real clash occurs from these.
Refer to speed section.

K Affs/Non-Traditional –
Go for it. Would prefer it was germane to the topic, but it's not a necessity.
Disclaimer: I am not completely up-to-date with identity args and authors. Just make sure that rather than giving author names, read out their claims and warrants to me. I'm not lay, but do explain the world of the aff and explain what the args mean. You can usually tell pretty easily if I'm following or not.

CP –
All CPs are fine. With that in mind, if you read a rider, delay, or any other similar counterplan, be ready to defend theory since I'll have a higher threshold. CPs must also be competitive and have a net benefit. It will take a lot of work to convince me to vote for a CP just because it has good solvency with no additional benefits.
Aff: if you read theory on a CP, be sure to explain why the CP in question is bad, not just the type of CP (Example: I'll vote on Intl' CP Fiat Bad, but I will be much more likely to buy China/Russia/Japan Fiat Bad)

DA –
Specifics over generic. I will vote for generic DA’s/links, but it will be much easier to sway me to not vote for them if it is generic. No link args made by aff will be harder to overcome for generics.

K –
Reading the same K shell every round won’t cut it. Whether you have cards specific for the aff case or not, you need to apply the K in terms of the aff. If you can read back 1AC/2AC cards or quotes and link it back to the K, it will go a long way for your link analysis. I really don’t like to vote on link of omissions, but I will if you can convince me why I should. Expect to put in time to convince me to vote on those; a couple sentences won’t get the job done. Don’t just repeat alt taglines at me, contextualize it in terms of the aff/round/world/whatever.
Refer to K aff section in regards to identity.

Speed –
Don’t shotgun theory/t/fw args. If you read 5 blippy analytical arguments that you believe are all key reasons why I should vote for your args, but you read them all in rapid succession without stopping for a breath and you still expect me to catch and flow every single one, I won’t. If I don’t catch it, I won’t flow it. Clarity comes before speed. Taglines should be presented with a change in pitch or volume.
Debaters tend to spread paragraphs of analytical args and expect me to flow every word. If you do have these paragraphs, slow down a tad so that I can write it. You don't need to talk in a normal speaking voice, but at least slow down a little.
That being said, I am okay with speed, despite what you might interpret from that. Don’t be afraid to read quickly in front of me. If you think you could flow it, then I will probably be able to as well.

Misc-

-Overflows > Underflows. But also, I just don't like underflows in general.
-Prep ends when the drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent.

-I love Clever technical tricks/kicks/cross-applications. This will get a major boost in speaks from me.

-CX is binding.
-Don’t clip cards. This should be obvious and applies to every round.
-If you’re kicking an advocacy such as a CP or an alt, be sure to say so.
-If there’s an email chain, go ahead and put me in it.
-Cross-Ex: Be aggressive, not rude.
-Don’t mock or be distracting during someone else’s speech. I will dock speaker points if I deem it necessary

Speaker points –
30: Probably the best speaker at the tournament
29.5+: Getting a speaker award
29+: Has a few mistakes, but is still a fantastic speaker
28.5+: More mistakes, but still above average
28+: About average, could’ve handled some things differently or improved on speaking quality
27.5+: Many mistakes
27+: Many larger mistakes
26: Made huge errors that affected the outcome of my decision
Below a 26: Behavior, actions, or words that are harmful or hateful towards a people or a person directly. Also given for those that don’t fully participate.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

Hello debaters:)

Please don’t use theory, K, and definitely no tricks. I value hard core traditional weighing like magnitude, timeframe, probability and etc. You need to show weighing in all parts of the debate. If you weigh very well, I will give you high speaks.

In addition, please don't speed read. If I say "clear", you have to slow down. I will say clear a max of 2 times and if you continue to spread I will deduct -2 on speaks.

Lastly, treat me like a traditional judge.

Thank you.

When it comes to judging a debate, I look for several different things.

The first is following a general code of conduct. I expect competitors to be respectful to one another, as well as respectful to all who are viewing or judging the event. I feel like that should be a given, and any time I have seen competitors behave in a way that I would consider unprofessional or unkind, I have criticized them for doing so. Any disrespect to opponents will not be tolerated. I have stopped time in the middle of a round and demanded a competitor be more respectful to their opponent, and I am not afraid to do it again. Persistent interruption, purposeful or micro aggressions, blatant disrespect, leaving the room or round, mockery, or any other form of unkindness will not be tolerated in any way.

The next is understanding the topic and information at hand. In my opinion, if you cannot put any of the issues at hand into your own words, you do not understand the content well enough. Having the sources and quotations is great, but I need to see fluency in your case materials. Further, I expect competitors to be able to ask questions about their opponent's case that relate to the subject at hand. I find all of the time frames of debate to be very valuable and I do not tolerate wasting that time.

I also look for quality of the case. Specifically for Lincoln-Douglas, a case should be based on legitimate and provable substance. Too many times I have seen competitors build an entire case based on a Red Herring fallacy, and it is extremely apparent that these competitors do not understand the material, nor do they understand the structure of debate. For Public Forum, I look for legitimate and factual evidence that enforces the case, as well as questions that point out weaknesses in their opponent's case. There are times where competitors ask a question that has almost nothing to do with the matter at hand and is only asked to confuse their opponents. These are signs of a debater who is not deserving of a win.

Similarly to the above, I draw a hard line between debate styles. Public Forum cases should be based on facts and empirical evidence. I do not want to morality discussed in a PF round, unless it can be proven with fact in some way. Lincoln-Douglas cases should be based on moral values that are supported by fact. I do not want to see anyone ask for a plan to fix a problem in an LD round. I do not support blending of debate styles. Ultimately, if your goal is to debate on a particular style, you must be competing in that event.

Additionally, I look for competitors who are able to act quick on their feet and roll with the punches. As a former debater, I'm able to relate to these competitors. I've competed against people who have broken the rules, people who have no case to debate against, people who are difficult to understand for various reasons, people who have become enraged and/or violent, and people who were absolutely better debaters than me who were able to ask questions that got me tongue tied. I expect competitors to able to work with what they're given. If your opponent asks for a definition and you don't have one, provide one of your own. If there is still time in crossfire and you don't have any more questions, come up with more or ask your opponent to restate something. There is ALWAYS a way to defend your case.

My final decision on who wins the debate will always go to the case that holds up the best by the end of the round. Which side had the strongest contentions? Which side was able to defend their case from attacks the best? It is not common that any other factors will swing my decision. However, if I feel it is necessary to criticize the strongest team, I will do so.