Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

Feel free to run any argument you'd like, as long as you run it well I will evaluate it. I have a strong negative preference to K-affs however, please don't run those.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can run pretty much anything in front of me and I'll at least entertain the notion of voting for it, but please please know what your cards are saying and argue it well. I love weird/entertaining arguments, however, it pisses me off to see weird/entertaining arguments that the team running them clearly does not understand or care about

I love a good kritik debate. Regardless, I am still interested in straight laced policy debating and would much prefer you debate what you're comfortable with and what you feel you're most skilled at. This is especially true at the higher levels of debate- I find that often, really good Varsity teams read my judging philosophy and assume things about the way I will vote in a kritik-centered round. Please cater your round very little to what you think I will vote for; debate how you debate, it's more fun for all of us.

If you are intentionally racist, sexist, etc., or run "racism/sexism/etc. good", not only will I give you pathetically low speaks, I will probably get really mad and tweet about it.

At the end of the day, I love debate, I love judging, and I love being a coach. I have my preferences but am fairly flexible. Have fun and don't be a dick and the round will work out for both of us.

Questions? Email me at alix.dahl@gmail.com

He/Him

Minneapolis South/Occasional judging for Minnesota

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

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

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

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

How I judge - big picture > minutia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old water topic thoughts archive

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

Old CJR thoughts archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: joshgroven@hotmail.com

Background and Contact Information

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

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

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

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

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

Judging Approach

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

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

Positions and Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substantive Things You Should Do

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

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

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

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

Stylistic In-Round Things You Should Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out-of-Round Things You Should Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare Things That Impress Me When Done Well

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

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

– Demonstrating strong familiarity with your and your opponents' evidence

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

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

– Using common sense to help beat blatantly untrue arguments

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

Evidence and Extensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important Point

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

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

Lincoln–Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Please do not attempt to shake my hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun!

scotthkrueger@gmail.com
I was the Captain of the Eagan Policy Debate Team (2019-2020) and now debate Lincoln-Douglas for Simpson College(2020-Present). I additionally have debated Big Questions and Parliamentary as well as judged Congress.
I will vote on most anything, during my highschool career I leaned towards the basic kritiks (Biopower, Cap K), and rhetoric kritiks (nuclearism, fem, post-colonialism) but if inherency is your winning strategy don't hold anything back. If you plan on running a "not on the wiki" sort of argument, it has to meet an incredibly high threshold for me to vote on it - for instance, them dropping the issue in it's entirety and, therefore, agreeing that they "did a bad."
Tech >Truth except for Racism/Sexism/Discrimination. Debate is a competitive academic argumentation event. Reading cards at me is just the beginning of what you should be doing. Your job is to convince me that your position (Plan/Alternative/Counterplan/Status Quo) is the best and reading random pieces of evidence isn't the sort of interaction and argumentation that convinces me of your position being true.
Referring to me as "Your Supreme Excellency" once will get you a minimum of a 27.3 speaker points.
I don't like judge intervention, you should be telling me how to vote in the final two rebuttals.
Mearsheimer is the Once and Future King.
If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it. If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.
There is a fine line between assertive and overly aggressive - don't be a jerk or your speaker points will suffer. I think that the most important thing we get from debate is education about the topic as well as the connections we make with other people in our little community - remember that the other team are also people.

If you are spreading so fast that it sounds like white noise I might just fall asleep.

Topics I've Debated
China (2016)
Education (2017)
Humans are Fundamentally Different than Animals (2018)
Immigration (2018)
Humans are primarily driven by self-interest (2018)
Arm Sales (2019)
Immigration (2020)

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his

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

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

School conflicts: Minnesota, Glenbrook North, Como Park

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

Stuff related to online debating:

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

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

Sliders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't be sloppy with sources.

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

T-USFG/FW:

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

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

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

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

I like Ks. (If you read policy arguments, I prefer a reasonable link chain and v clear overviews)

I also don't tend to vote on T

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

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

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

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

Theory: sure.

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

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

He/They

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

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

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

tl;dr

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

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

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

Don't assume I know your acronym.

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

Background

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

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

What NOT to do

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

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

The Criticism

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

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

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

Planless Affs

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

Debating Against Planless Affs

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

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

Framework

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

The TVA is important.

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

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

CP/DA's

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

Theory and Topicality

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

Other thoughts

-Antonio 95 is the best worst card in debate

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

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

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

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

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

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 15 seconds to find the card, I will treat it as an unsupported argument.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become an abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than just a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns-He/Him/His

I've coached for 4 years and been judging for about 7 years now. I believe my job is to be as impartial as possible in round and for you to convince me why your argument is important in the greater context of the round. Dropping debate jargon with no warrants is not an argument, so please make it clear why I should vote for you. If you have any questions just shoot a message to: ogung004@umn.edu (this is also the same email address you should put on the email chain).

Case:

Aff: Don’t abandon it what you read in the 1AC should in some shape or form be in the 2AR.

Neg: Regardless of what you are running you should tell me how it interacts with case presented by the aff.

D.A.:

Neg: Cool with generic DAs as long as you have some decent links ( I’m pretty lenient on what a “decent” link is), I think if you want to win this you have to give a good impact calc as to why the D.A./case strategy is enough to win it (if you are going for this strat) D.A. turns case to me is a very easy neg ballot

C.P.

Aff: I hate nothing more than perms with no analysis or cards behind it, if you know from the 2AC that theory isn’t even an option then don’t waste time, I will also vote on aff presumption if the CP in of itself does not solve case

Neg: CP must be functionally competitive, I don’t care what word you change in the plan text, if they are the same thing functionally I’m voting aff.

K:

Aff: Not much to say here, I think arguing that critical arguments are bad for debate is an easy aff loss, also reject alts bad doesn’t sit well with me because plan is always a D.A. to the k alt. If you run a critical aff, I want to know at some point in the debate: 1. if you defend the resolution 2. what it is your plan actually accomplishes. Anything else feel free to do, and a plan text is not necessary, but an advocacy statement is nice.

Neg: I’m a fan of this argument but it doesn’t mean I’ll vote for the team that throws the most buzzwords and calls it a K, I want a clear link story in the 1NC and an explanation of the K in the block, I want an impact and if it’s V2L, a reason why util is bad, and why your impact outweighs. If you claim that the K solves the aff I want specific evidence and analysis as to why that is the case. I won’t claim to know more than I do, but I have basic knowledge of some K lit, but an explanation is still great.

T and Theory

T, theory, and framework is an argument of competing interps for me, unless told not to vote so, I think if you are topical you should tell me why. If you have a theoretical argument, I want real impacts, so if the other team drops it, it matters to my ballot and the round as a whole. DO NOT make quick theory arguments and expect me to vote for them!

I will be as open-minded throughout the round up until you start to indulge in one of the -isms (you know what I'm talking about), everyone should feel safe in the debate space, and my ballot reflects that. Be respectful and have fun!

4 years of high school policy debate, 11 years of coaching for Eagan High School (MN).

Please add eaganpolicydebate@gmail.com to any email chains (but note point 2 below).

My weirdest views that I wish more people would exploit:

* Inherency is a stock issue that the affirmative carries the burden of proof on.

* Topicality is not about limits, fairness, or ground: it's about an interpretation of my jurisdiction as a judge to resolve the round in favor of the affirmative. Most "reasons to prefer" these days are extratextual attempts to relitigate the resolution and punish the affirmative for not adhering to your personal view of what negative ground should look like.

* Most framing pages make huge claims that never interact with the substance of the round. Most teams would be better off dispensing with a framing page and learning to compare impacts.

* Most counterplans fail to resolve the resolutional question in favor of the negative. I'm especially skeptical of topical counterplans.

* Most "kritiks" hardly interact with the plan and don't operate to refute it or the resolution.

***

All preferences expressed below are subject to the facts and circumstances of the round. If you have particular concerns not addressed below, speak to me before the round.

1. Clarity over speed. If you can imagine your theoretical maximum speed, I would like to hear you at about 70%. If you have any doubt, go slower. This is especially relevant in the age of virtual debates.

2. I evaluate debates using my flow of your speeches. Debate is a game of oral advocacy. Accordingly, I don't read evidence during or after the round because I think it increases the likelihood that I am judging my thoughts about the evidence and not the arguments presented in the round. Please use short tags, organize your speeches, label positions, and identify arguments that you are responding to by signpost (e.g., 2AC 1) or short summary (e.g., "off the no link").

3. Affirmatives should present a topical advocacy. A topical advocacy involves advocating that the U.S. federal government take an action to complete the resolutional objective. You will almost certainly lose to a minimally competent negative in front of me if your answer to topicality arguments involves claiming that you don't have to be topical. (In fact, if you claim that you are a prerequisite to affirming the resolution or that you are not topical in the 1AC, all a negative team has to do to win my ballot is to point out that you haven't affirmed.) You should instead argue why you fit under the resolution regardless of a non-traditional presentation.

4. I care most about how the affirmative's proposed action will affect people. Explain to me how your impacts affect the material conditions of people's lives and why your impacts are more important than your opponents' (e.g., via timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

5. I am usually a bad judge for critical arguments. If you are a team that is not flexible enough to read a disadvantage or case arguments, critiques usually lose in front of me because I don't understand the link (links of omission and root cause arguments don't pass muster as links) or because I don't understand why I should hold the affirmative responsible for, say, the entirety of capitalism.

6. My speaker points skew lower than most judges. If I had to guess, median points are between 27.5 and 28. I reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, cross-examinations that develop the debate, and displaying respect for your opponents.

7. Unless specified as a requirement by the tournament rules, "disclosure theory" or "new affirmatives bad" are not good arguments.

- I debated for 4 years at Washburn High School, this is my 6th (?) year judging debates and 2nd year as the JV/Varsity coach at St. Paul Central.

- I have judged 20+ rounds on the Criminal Justice Reform topic.

- My email address is peich025@umn.edu, please add me to the email chain if there is one!

- I'm not great at understanding and flowing debaters who speak very quickly and in the extreme I can get overwhelmed and will definitely miss important points. If you're insistent on speaking at a fast pace, slowing down and emphasizing your most important points will help me flow what you want me to flow.

- I don't really have much argumentative preferences. I mostly read kritikal arguments in high school but am comfortable voting on pretty much anything with the exception of obviously violent/offensive arguments.

- Don't assume I know your literature. Greater complexity means you'll have do more work to explain the core ideas of your arguments, especially when it comes to things like psychoanalysis kritiks.

- I like jokes! One of my favorite rounds of all time involved arguing for abolitionist space geckos.

Past Affiliations: James Madison University (2012-2016), University of Minnesota (2016-2017)

Current Affiliation: Edina High School

tldr: Do what you do best in front of me. I'm open to voting on pretty much anything. I've debated and coached most types of arguments (big stick affs, soft left affs, affs that don't defend a plan, Ks, DAs, Impact turns etc.). The best way to get my ballot is to 1.) have a clear explanation of the argument with warrants 2.) have an impact well articulated and how you solve/avoid it and 3.) frame the debate as to how I should evaluate the impacts presented to me.

I started debating in college as a novice and really love judging all levels of debate. For me, I see debate as an educational activity not just in terms of the topic we discuss each year but also in terms of the skills we learn by doing debate. I view myself as an external party to evaluate the debate and provide feedback to the debaters. I take notes during each speech and cross ex to remember specific things that were really awesome and/or could be improved. I also will include my notes on my ballot on Tabroom.

General Thoughts/Views on Debate:

Terminal defense/presumption wins debates - I can be persuaded no risk of aff solvency, zero link/internal link to a DA, or that a team doesn't meet their own interpretation/role of the ballot and should lose. "1% risk" only applies if you answer the warrants to their defense.

Evidence is good, thinking is better - Having high quality evidence is strongly encouraged. Reading a card for every argument would be nice but in most cases is unrealistic. I would prefer you (1) tell me why an argument doesn't make sense in context to your aff/K/DA by clearly articulating how your position/argument functions or (2) explain WHY your opponents evidence is terrible (not just it's a really bad card, but what specifically is lacking). Good analytics can beat bad evidence. Expanding on and extending warrants from evidence previously read can subsume their new card's warrants. Notice when they highlight their card to say something different than a tag or they don't get to/cut the card before the warrant of and make an argument about it. Think smarter, not harder.

Be clear on what you defend - It doesn't help anyone (yourself, your opponent or your judge) if you dance around if you defend implementation, what specific reform or methodology you use, what actor you are etc. The sooner you are clear about what the aff does, the sooner solvency deficits/perm functionality/links become clearer for your judge.

Judge-kicking a CP/Alt is probably bad - There are arguments people can make saying it's good but 99.9% of the time aff answers as to why it's bad are stronger. I don't think I have an obligation to kick something the 2NR defended, especially when the aff has a warranted argument against it.

Email Chains are the way/how does one e-debate? - Debate is going to be different for everyone this year. I think especially the first few tournaments will help establish best practices. I'll probably change/add more here later in the season but let's all be understanding with each other re: tech issues and any growing pains of learning a new method of doing debate. Please include me on the email chain; my email is samanthaleighp (at) gmail (dot) com

I flow straight down (mostly) - If you're only taking part of a flow, and it isn't what's on top, that's fine but know I flow straight down for the most part. I will try and match up as a go but I would rather get your arguments down and organize them later.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality:

General thoughts - I default to competing interpretations unless given another way to evaluate T. If a T argument doesn't make sense, you should explain why it doesn't make sense and articulate to me why your aff is a good form of education on this topic. Examples of ground/education loss as well as what is allowed under your interpretation are important in order to explain to me what a world of your interpretation looks like.

In Straight Up Debates – You need to have a clearly flushed out interpretation and why that is important for debate. Impacts for T, I find, are one of the harder things to learn as a debater but ground and education are some of the ones that I find most persuasive. Using T to get links for DAs/CPs is smart and appreciated.

In Clash Debates - I would prefer that affs have a relationship to the topic, but that relationship is up to interpretation and can be debated. A couple of notes adapted from Lindsey Shook and Shree Asware's judging philosophies:

(1) Nuance is important and most persuasive. Sweeping claims about ALL T or ALL K teams or ALL policy teams are not very persuasive to me (ie "all people quit because of K teams" or "T is always X violence”). I would prefer you to make impacts specific to what limits your interpretation is making in context to the arguments being made in the round.

(2) Uniqueness arguments matter. Inevitability and accessibility claims (and their relationship to the T version of the aff) are where I'm most likely to begin evaluating the debate.

Theory:

I like theory debates and may be more likely than others to pull the trigger on it if it's well developed. That being said, I am completely unpersuaded by the 2AC reading 10 blippy theory arguments and trying to develop one or two arguments in the rebuttals. I would prefer the 2AC would make 1-2 well warranted theory arguments. All theory arguments need 1.) a developed interp and 2.) impacts with examples of practices that are justified or abuses that specifically happened in the debate. I default to reject the arg not the team unless told otherwise. Slowing down on theory debates is preferred so I get all of your standards on my flow.

Straight Up Strats:

General thoughts - I am absolutely willing to vote on zero risk of a link/impact or presumption if well executed and warranted. I am finding more and more that straight up 2ACs tend to undercover case and assume judges can/will fill in the rest, especially in terms of articulating solvency. There's a fine line between efficiency and failing to meet the burden of proof in terms of articulation. If you don't say it, I can't evaluate it and it's smart to point out when your opponents fail to do so.

CPs - CPs are good, PICs are better. I'm down to vote for a Word PIC but I think they're more often than not poorly executed. If you have a multi-plank CP, slow down on the CP text so I get all the planks please. Theory on CPs is good, but as explained above, it needs to be well warranted.

DAs - They're a thing? I don't have anything super specific at the moment other than the more contextual your link ev is to the aff mechanism the better. Examples add good context/persuasion to an internal link chain story especially in the absence of specific evidence. A note adapted from Jacob Bosley and Shree Asware's philosophies: DA debates need to be specific as to how the case and the DA interact, such as does the DA turn the case or vice versa, how timeframe evaluation impact turning the case, or how the uniqueness and link frame the debate (ie does uniqueness frame the link or link frame close uniqueness and why).

Ks and Non-Traditional Strats:

Ks should engage the aff. The best way to articulate a K in front of me is to apply the work done on the K flow and apply it to the case with examples. General Thoughts:

1.) I need a clear articulation of how the perm functions or is/isn't competitive. I can be persuaded of "no plan no perm" but this is best executed against an aff that changes their articulation of the aff in every speech. If you want to go for this, you need to articulate why the aff doesn't have a stable locus to test competition with the alt. For both aff and neg, it's far better to explain how the different methodologies interact - what is/is not mutually exclusive or contradictory and what the perm looks like in terms of praxis.

2.) Paraphrased from Lindsey Shook's philosophy: External Impacts need to be somewhere. They don't have to be nuclear war causes extinction but you need to have distinctions from what the aff addresses/solves and what the k/alt addresses/solves and how those interact in some sort of impact analysis, especially in the last rebuttals.

3.) Do what you're comfortable with. As said above, I prefer affs have a relationship to the topic but doesn’t mean you need to defend the USFG/traditional policy action. There are many ways to engage politics and different methodologies add a richness to the education we take away from the activity. I will vote on the flow; I have no preference between Ks (aff or neg) and policy/traditional options.

Experience: I am a fifth-year policy coach for Rosemount High School. I debated for 4 years at Rosemount High School and recently graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in political science (quantitative-focus) and election administration. My main experience in argumentation is in policy-oriented soft-left positions, with a focus on legal theory (court CP's, Court Legitimacy, Test Case FIAT, etc), although I did often run critical arguments such as Neoliberalism, Security, Legalism, and Disability.

Please include me on email chains: sewpersauddebate@gmail.com

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

1. It is an educational activity first and foremost. Everything else (competitive success, winning, etc) is second to education. If you aren't learning, then you aren't succeeding in debate. If you do things that actively harm someone else's education, then you will get bad speaker points.

2. It is a game - in the sense that it should be fair, and you shouldn't exclude others from the discussion. This means debate should be accessible and respectful. Intentionally misgendering your opponent, saying rude comments or anything like that (especially laughing at the other person giving the speech) is not good for a game. That will also hurt your speaker points.

3. It is a competitive reading activity - you should read your opponents' evidence and attack the specific warrants. The other team's evidence is also the best way to find links to any kritiks. Additionally, this means evidence quality matters -- if you misrepresent your warrants and the other team calls you out for it, I will intervene and only judge the warrant as the author originally intended it.

4. Clarity > Speed - I flow on paper, and if you are reading at one speed that is incomprehensible, then you will get low speaker points. I have voted for teams but given them 26 speaker points to them purely because they did not slow down throughout their speech, creating a borderline unflowable speech. Lack of clarity is anti-education.

5. In-depth conversation and argumentation >>>>> five-off or more - I think the tendency to read as many off-case arguments as possible to out-spread the other team is an inherently bad strategy and extremely detrimental to debate. It certainly damages education. I will absolutely accept Condo arguments if the other team is reading more than four-off, especially if you explain how damaging it is to education. This is one of the few areas where I am very oriented towards (my personal) truth over tech. Reading an unreasonable number of off-case arguments is a surefire way to lose a ballot in front of me. Especially if 3 or more of those arguments are separate advocacies, I will (almost) automatically buy abuse arguments.

Affirmatives: As I stated before, I prefer policy plans, but if you have a more critical advantage, I will not be too lost. I prefer soft-left affirmatives over policy affs, but I've run both types. Advantages that tackle discrimination including Sexism, Ableism, or Racism are very responsive to me, as I believe they have the most realistic impacts. I also generally believe the affirmative must be in the resolution. In other words, if you have a critical aff, this is not the best round to run it. I believe the affirmative should stick to the plan text and should defend that plan throughout the round. I do, however, understand the validity of Critical Affirmatives, but if you cannot answer the questions from the negative like "what ground do we get?" or "how is your model of debate accessible?" during cross-examination, you will likely lose, because I view debate as a game that needs to have at least some semblance of fairness and education. In my experience, some K affs end up being a way to scare other teams from engaging with the arguments and ends up shifting the discussion away from education. Basically, if you're able to defend how your model of debate promotes fairness and education, then K affs are fine. But I generally think plan-based affs provide for better models of accessible debate.

All that said, I have recently coached teams that almost exclusively read a non-topical critical affirmative and my stance has softened slightly on that front. I’ll evaluate your K aff, but be prepared to defend your model of debate and why you think it’s good!

Disadvantages: If you run this and want to win with it, there must be a clear link. If you don't do enough specific link work in the 2NR (i.e. show how the plan directly causes your link chain), I probably won't vote for it, unless the aff never answers it in the 2AR. Also, make sure you do impact calculus between the aff and the DA, and prove why your impact is worse. I also love when a team runs a CP with their DA. For politics DAs, I hate most of these because I think the logic behind these DAs is bad and generally relies on flawed assumptions. Politics DAs can be creative, but the bar for this is very high if I'm your judge.

Counterplans: CP's are a versatile position which I am quite familiar with. I believe Counterplans do not have to be topical, but they should still be competitive. Also, if you run a CP, make sure you answer the Perm, and when you do, make sure that you tell me specifically why it doesn't function. Theory can be an independent voter (when it is impacted out), so don't ignore it. Additionally, I think sufficiency framing is usually a pretty lazy argument that is made by teams who don't think their CP solvency is all that good. You need to prove why the CP solves BETTER than the affirmative, not just that it solves "enough" of the aff. Sufficiency framing is generally not enough for me to vote for the CP.

Topicality/FW/Theory: While the position is more valid when there is clear abuse outlined in the argument, there doesn't always have to be abuse. It can be used effectively as link traps or for other strategic reasons. I also love Effects/Extra Topicality arguments, especially if presented well. For the aff, Reasonability is a valid argument, but if you want me to vote on it, tell me why your plan is reasonably topical under the neg's interpretation and the aff's. On theory, disclosure theory is a non-starter. Do not run this, even as a cheap argument. While it won't lose you the round, it will damage your credibility with me and your speaker points. The only exception to this is if the team discloses one aff, and then changes it at the last minute. Then I can see it being warranted. For the most part, I think theory is usually used as a cheap strategy. Don't use it as that. Use it only if it is well-warranted. A-Spec is usually ridiculous and I don’t think I’d find myself voting for it all that often, although if it’s well-warranted, then maybe (the bar for that is extremely high, so please try to avoid this unless absolutely necessary). Perf con against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Condo against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Make sure your theory arguments make sense!

Most of all in theory debates, SLOW DOWN! You are essentially reading paragraphs which are incredibly difficult to flow if you just speed through them. I think spreading through theory is anti-education, and is a surefire way to damage your speaker points. I flow on paper, so my flowing speed is limited and I'm not going to flow theory arguments that I missed - it's your burden to make sure I get them. Additionally, if you don't slow down on theory arguments, you will damage your speaker points. Like I started this paradigm with, debate is an educational activity first. If the way you read theory is anti-educational, I will let you know after the round.

Kritiks: I am not great with all K's, so if you run one, make sure you clearly explain the story (especially the link and alternative) if you expect me to vote for it. However, I have run Disability, Security, Legalism, and Neoliberalism K's as well as Word PIKs, and done some coaching on more identity-based Kritiks, so if you're comfortable with those positions, this would be the round to run it. Basically, if you really want me to follow your Kritik, run Security, Disability, Afropess, Language K's, or Neoliberalism. If you don’t care if I understand your position, run Deleuze, Queer Pessimism or Baudrillard. I have a high bar for voting for Kritiks that I am not familiar with. Do not assume I understand your Kritik, explain it at the thesis level. Just as importantly, explain it within the context of the affirmative! What is the problematic assumption or rhetoric that the aff makes/uses? How does that cause the perpetuation of the bad thing you're Kritiking? How does your alternative resolve the issue? A Kritik that earns my ballot will answer all of these questions.

General: Spreading is fine, but make sure you don't go past what you feel comfortable with and SLOW DOWN ON THE TAGS. If I miss your tag because you didn't pause or slow down when reading it, I am not going to flow it for you. Make it clear, or I won't weigh the argument. When you are speaking, make sure you analyze each argument in full and make a coherent claim. Tags should be complete sentences. The word "Extinction" is not a tag. I will not flow it as an argument if that is your tag. Also, please self-time. It really helps me, and especially it helps you.

Please do not try to throw rounds. I have had a team do that in front of me, and I believe that it legitimizes a bad practice in the debate community, is anti-education, and it will severely impact your speaker points if I realize your intention.

Structuring: I will give you extra speaker points if you NUMBER AND SUBPOINT each of your arguments on the flow for the ease of flowing.

Other Positions/Arguments: There are a few positions that I will NEVER evaluate within any round. These include, but are not limited to:

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good

-Suicide CP/DA and/or Death K (Seriously. The way this is commonly debated brings with it serious mental health concerns and I will tolerate none of that.)

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

Basically, if you think that your position sounds like it advocates for something offensive, don't run it.

Cross-Examination: Make sure you are polite. I am fine with tag-team if both teams agree to it, but if you shout over your partner, I will dock speaker points. Most importantly, remember that CROSS-EX IS A SPEECH. Cross-Ex is a great place to set traps for your opponents, and for you to be able to use what they say in-round against them. I do flow cross-ex, so I know what was said. Don't try to pull one over on me.

To sum it all up in a few points...

1. Education comes first. Debate is an educational activity at its core, and I believe my primary role within the round is that of an educator. If you do things that I deem as harmful to debate education, you will get lower speaker points, and may lose the round.

2. I tend to be a policy-oriented judge, although I am very comfortable with Kritiks. If you want to run one, be sure to fully explain it as if I have never heard of the philosophy before.

3. Cross-Ex is a speech and a great place to form arguments, so use it!

4. Explain everything to the fullest extent, especially links. If there is not enough work done on DA/K/T links, I will not vote for it.

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round starts!

Rosemount High School (MN)

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

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

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

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

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

--

Yes, email chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Some details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Older Profile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

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

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD