Background - I was a policy debater at Rosemount high school for four years, including being a policy debate captain my junior and senior years. While at Rosemount, I debated at both local and national circuit tournaments. I am previously worked as a coach at Farmington High School in (you guessed it) Farmington Minnesota. Presently, I'm in Moorhead at MSUM. I have judged high school tournaments before, mostly policy, but also a tiny bit of LD and like two rounds of PF.

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. ericabaumann27@gmail.com

My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.

I use they/them pronouns.

As far as other "pre-round" questions go: Speed is fine. Tag-team CX is fine (so long as you let your partner answer and ask their own questions.) If you are Maverick, please let me know, and we can come up with the appropriate accommodations for you.

General Philosophy: I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. Just because you say something doesn't instantly make it true.

I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.

I am a fan of debaters being good human beings. I think it should go without saying, but being kind, polite and remembering that we are all people goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were also inexperienced at one point.

In addition, I am telling you now: you need to respect the pronouns of the other people in the round. I will not stand for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, fatphobia or ableism in this space. I do not tolerate arguments that are harmful, disrespectful, malicious or any argument that has a directly adverse effect on your opponents. Period.

I will treat you with respect, and as so, I expect you to treat your opponents, your partner, and your judge (me), with respect.

Also Note:

While I am a policy-maker and they aren't my favorite, I will entertain most Ks. I am good with Cap/Neolib, Security, and the like. High theory K's are more iffy, not because I think they're stupid or invalid, but simply because I have difficulty understanding them. I will listen to them, but you had better do a really really good job of explaining them to me. I never really debated high theory Kritiks, so my knowledge of them is somewhat limited. Do with that information what you will.

Now, if you do run a K, please know what you're talking about. I take issue with debaters who simply read Ks to read Ks and who have zero understanding of the authors intent or ideology. I promise you, I can usually tell. Also, please don't try to guilt me into voting for your K because it is the "right thing to do", I really really don't vibe with that. Another big pet-peeve of mine is Ks that are full of flowery language and complex rhetoric but that do nothing. I believe that, if you do run a K, your alt has to have some kind of actual (tangible?) effect. I do accept mindset shifts (as they can potentially cause an actual change) but they need to have some kind of way to prove to me that said shift will take actually take place.

If you are running any identity-politics arguments, you need to be kind.

I like debaters who give me roadmaps. Please give me a roadmap.

Bonus points if you make me laugh.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask. I am always here to help!

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

University of Minnesota, NDT-CEDA 2017-2021 (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space, Alliances). Anoka High School, (lay) LD+PF 2015-2017.

For the email chain: please put the tournament and the teams in the subject line, it makes organization and scouting easier. College rounds: Please put debatedocs@googlegroups.com (not any other email address) on the email chain for me.

If you have questions: don't email debatedocs, email mjgranstrom@gmail.com. Please do not put this on the email chain: I want a clean email inbox, and I will immediately forward the email chain to debatedocs and then delete it. Please save me the effort.

You have my consent to record/stream/publish the round (and you are encouraged to do so, pending the consent of other participants). Here is my policy judging record, with a brief summary of each round and decision.

I appreciate when teams point out their opponents' mistakes in a speech, and I am reluctant to do that work absent debater instruction. I appreciate in-depth case debating. I greatly appreciate mundane arguments executed well.

I dislike time-wasting. I strongly dislike kritiks, and in general only vote on them when the risk of the affirmative's impacts is zeroed by external case defense. I dislike counterplans that do not have predetermined outcomes. I dislike argumentative cowardice: making incomplete arguments for strategic reasons, evasiveness in cross-examination, deliberate opacity in disclosure, making an argument in a speech and then walking it back immediately afterwards in cross-examination.

I am a very expressive judge -- if I look confused during your speech, you have confused me; if I look frustrated during your speech, it is probably your fault; if I laugh when you make an argument it is not because I will not vote on it or because it is a bad argument, it is because the argument is funny (i.e. counterplan texts that take two minutes to read), or because the fact that you have been forced to make it is funny (i.e. a Navy team reading "naval personnel not key to readiness"). I am bad at evaluating topicality debates, this is a skill at which I have been actively seeking to improve. I am willing to evaluate arguments other judges dismiss as jokes (warming good, aliens, wipeout, etc), but be warned: these arguments are jokes because their best answers are easy to execute. I am confident I am in the top five percent of all judges for topicality against kritikal affirmatives: I find it difficult to comprehend any of the answers I have ever heard to 'read it on the negative.'

I am more persuaded by 'elegant' theory interpretations than those that feel arbitrary: Interpretations like "2 conditional counterplans" or "one counterplan and one kritik" feel much less defensible to me than "arbitrarily many conditional counterplans," "arbitrarily many dispositional counterplans", or "only unconditional counterplans". Theory arguments premised on argumentation theory or logic are more intuitive to me than others. Theory debates are frequently lost when one side is reading their blocks at top speed and are not paying attention to the content of the other side's arguments. Despite spending half of my debate career as a 2N, I am less convinced of the value of conditionality than most other judges.

The neg block contains a constructive and a rebuttal. Corollary 1: It is very easy to persuade me to reject new arguments made in the first negative rebuttal. Corollary 2: It is hard to persuade me arguments made in the second negative constructive should be thought of differently than arguments made in the first negative constructive.

Novice/JV debate:

Novice and JV debaters are strongly encouraged to simplify the debate in late rebuttals. This will improve both your speaker points and your odds of making sufficiently complete arguments to win the debate. The best non-varsity speech I have ever heard was a novice 1AR in which the debater kicked down to one advantage and extended no more than two defensive arguments on each other page.

Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing, your counterplans should probably be conditional -- empirics prove you are more likely to lose because the 2AC can now ignore multiple disads than to lose on conditionality.

Flow the debate -- I will be very disappointed if arguments that were in a speech doc but not read get answered.

Procedural items:

I will evaluate evidence that was inserted but not read only if the mere existence of the evidence constitutes a warrant (for instance, inserting solvency advocates in a topicality debate). I will kick counterplans for the negative only if I am explicitly instructed to do so. I will run a prep timer for teams who need things removed from a speech doc (this is distinct from asking for marks in marked evidence).

An ethics violation (evidence, clipping, etc) introduced as a voting issue will end the debate. If this occurs, I will give the team alleging the violation the opportunity to retract the allegation and proceed with the debate; their opponents may not insist the debate be staked on this issue. I have a high threshold for identifying malice or competitive advantage gained from introducing improperly cited evidence.

A forfeit will occur if one side does not wish to debate. I will consult tab, if they award a forfeit/bye I will not submit a ballot. If I am instructed to submit a ballot, the side withdrawing from the debate will recieve the minimum speaker points allowed. I will not participate in any arrangement to give sham speeches to avoid the bracket implications of a forfeit.

Competition rooms are public spaces, and spectators are welcome to watch or take notes as they see fit.

I will not evaluate either arguments about the conduct of the debaters that did not take place in the particular debate I am adjudicating or arguments about the conduct of individuals not participating in the particular debate I am adjudicating.

Nukes thoughts:

It seems like the deterrence disadvantage has gone out of style since the last time we debated arms control. That's kind of sad.

I have noticed that teams advancing arguments that Trump will win and that will cause broad US isolationism consistently underestimate the extent to which this interferes with internal links about the US being drawn into global crises.

Old personhood thoughts:

Plan texts should describe what the aff does. Plan texts should contain all of the things the affirmative wishes to fiat: If your solvency advocate calls for an insurance mandate, you probably already have enough offense against the PIC out of an insurance mandate to win without perm do the counterplan.

Old antitrust thoughts:

I have noticed that topicality interpretations seem exceedingly contrived and largely silly, and I don't know what is limiting this topic. I have noticed that in case-DA or counterplan-case-DA debates I vote negative an astounding amount of the time. This tells me that affirmative teams need 1) better 1ac answers to states and regs, 2) offense against net benefits, and 3) better case coverage in the 2ac.

Pet peeves:

The number of conditional worlds is two to the power of the number of advocacies, not the factorial of the number of advocacies.

All of the evidence you read in a debate should be formatted in the same way.

Put arguments in a useful order: If the first advantage has two scenarios, answer scenario 1 then scenario 2. If the 1AC has a solvency page, put circumvention there rather than on whichever advantage you take first.

A performative contradiction is never an independent voting issue -- it is either a double-turn (in which case a team can concede both halves and win) or a consequence of the introduction of a conditional advocacy (see above).

The speech doc is not a record of what happened in the round, it is a tool to share evidence. Failing to send evidence you read is a problem, failing to read evidence you sent is not.

No current competitors debated on either the healthcare or executive authority topics, don't act like you were there in T debates. Even I hardly remember those topics.

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.

About Me

Currently at Loyola Chicago and coaching for MPLS Washburn. Before that, I debated for Highland Park for four years, mostly on the local circuit but with a few nationals sprinkled in there.

If you want to know what I read you can check my senior year wiki, but tldr my affs all had 4-6 extinction impacts and I never read a K.

He/Him pronouns.

Put me on the email chain, hpkelly37 at gmail.

TLDR

-I think 99% of the time, skill at debate vastly outweighs the actual arguments people make so do what you do best. But since you probably want to know:

-Hard Policy Args: This is what I like most & what I'm best at. Go wild, have fun, it'll be great.

-Ks: Eh. They're fine. I didn't run them because they're a hassle to prep, but when well executed they're really interesting and fun to judge.

-Soft Left Args: I hate them. I'll obviously try to evaluate the round fairly, but I just don't enjoy these at all.

-Be polite in general please

-Keep your cams on if its an online debate. If you don't have one, then don't, just tell me in the chat or whatever.

Specific stuff

Fwk vs K aff

...cause this is what you're actually here for.

Honestly, I feel like k affs can win basically all the time just by straight turning all of the neg's impacts. Ideologically, I'm ambivalent (maybe lean slightly in favor of framework), but strategically I think it's a very easy argument to win for the aff.

Best way for the neg to win is to have a really good tva.

I don't know or care if fairness is an impact or an internal link.

Counterplans

I love counterplans. I hate the aff responding to them with theory---abusive counterplans theoretically exist, but I've never seen one I thought was abusive run in a round.

As you can probably guess, I love them.

sabrinatheythem@gmail.com

I strongly prefer for all documents to be sent out as word files and not as PDFs.

Personal Background

I dig holes for a living! I work for a landscaping firm called Metro Blooms planting pollinator gardens in Minneapolis and the surrounding area. When I'm not digging in the dirt or coaching debate I am playing softball in the Twin Cities G(ay)oodtime Softball League, or football in the Minnesota Gay Flag Football League. I majored in Political Science and Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.

I was a policy debater at the University of Minnesota from 2016-2020. In the past I have been a UDL coach for Roosevelt and Highland Park, and I am currently coaching at Wash Tech. I started debating in college in the Novice division, and went on to debate in JV and Open. Because I did not debate in high school, my general expectations as a judge come from the norms of collegiate policy debate.

Conduct in the Round

Punctuality - My preference is for the 1AC to be standing up and ready to speak at the start time of the round. That means that 10 minutes before the start time, you already started an email chain and sent the affirmative out to everyone in the round. I have had to decide debates before the final rebuttals due to tardiness, and I want you all to have the opportunity to finish the debate and ask questions.

CX - I do not appreciate tag team cross ex. If you jump in to ask or answer a cross ex question before your partner even opens their mouth, I will not be happy. If you have a specific question you would like your debate partner to ask, it is best practice to take prep time before cross ex to communicate that to them. This has the added benefit of freeing up 3:00 additional minutes of prep time for you.

Prep - If you are talking to your debate partner about the round, that always counts as taking prep. If you are standing up there taking too long to email the doc, I am suspicious of you. Be as prompt as possible after stopping your prep time to avoid suspicion.

Speaking - Speaking fast is ok but if you are failing to pronounce your words I will not be happy and I will let you know. If what you are saying in the speech does not reflect what is highlighted in your cards, I will know and I will ask you to send a document reflecting the cards that you actually read.

How to Win

Choose your strongest position in the 2NR/2AR (or earlier), and spend 5 minutes explaining the timeframe, probability, and magnitude of your strongest impact, compare/contrast your impact with your opponent's impact(s), and tell me why the plan does or does not solve for those impacts. If you bring more than one advantage into the 2AR, or more than one DA/K/CP+NB into the 2NR, I will be sad!

I care more about the technical execution of your argument than the specific content of it. Debates are often won and lost on dropped arguments. When extending arguments, simply repeating the author's name is not enough. In order for me to consider the argument extended into the speech, you must always explain the warrant from the evidence you wish to extend. Avoid reading new cards in the 2NC/2AC if those warrants already exist in the 1NC/1AC.

Do your best to answer your opponent's arguments line by line down the flow.

Speaker Points

I don't put much thought into evaluating this. It ends up being a rough relative ranking of all the speakers in the round, so if I think that you have a more or less polished style of debating than your opponents or your debate partner, it will be reflected in your speaker points. This part of the ballot is odd to me.

scotthkrueger@gmail.com
I was the Captain of the Eagan Policy Debate Team (2019-2020) and debated Lincoln-Douglas for Simpson College(2020-2021). Since then, I have debated in a slew of different formats - IPDA, NPDA, and college Public Forum mainly. I also had a two tournament run at Big Questions debate in highschool, but wished people engaged more in the religious side of the Templeton Institute's mission. I'm a graduate with a Bachelor's in political science and I will begin attending law school in the fall of 2024 - I find that sometimes biographical information helps with judge adaptation, so I include that here.

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. Some of my colleagues may believe this is silly, but it's proof for me that you read my paradigm going into the round and are adapting to my preferences.

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

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: 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

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

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

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

Email: Nixon@RosemountDebate.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014-18, Eagan HS MN

2018-19, Concordia College Debate (RIP)

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

Qualified NDT years: 2019-2020 (RIPx2)

Pronouns: She/Her

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

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

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

Personal Background

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

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

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

In short, almost* anything goes

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

CP

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

DA

Does anyone even have controversial opinions on these?

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

K

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

Framework/"T"

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

in short, I reward tenacity.

Aff

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

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

Random thoughts

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

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

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

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

local non-circuit POLICY MN tournaments only

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

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

Minigame

because debate should be fun here's a game

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

In-Round Etiquette

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

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