Tabroom.com

MDTA JVNovice State Championship

2020 — Online, MN/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tanvi Adige Rosemount Sr High School

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 12:42 PM EST

Notes for MSHSL State Tournament:

The rules state that debaters "should" read the source title, qualifications, author, and year. I'm fine if you just read author and year, but you must have all the source information available. I won't vote against debaters who didn't read full citations in their speeches based solely on the fact that they didn't "follow the rules" (which are ambiguous, if you ask me), but if your opponent asks for the citation information, you have to be able to provide it.
I cannot call for evidence unless there's a challenge made, and the challenge cannot be frivolous. If you are challenging evidence due to belief of either fabrication or distortion, you must be specific and provide warranted reasoning for the evidence violation. If this happens, I will first ask the debater to either reread the card or specific lines from the card, and only in extreme cases where I cannot make a judgement without reading it myself will I call for it.
Do not let the above two comments deter you from debating the quality of evidence. It can often be a mark of really high level debating if you tell me why your evidence is better than your opponent's, which can include source/author qualifications, recency, etc. and why that stuff matters in the debate.

Hey! I'm Tanvi. Small background on me, I was an LD debater at Rosemount High School in Minnesota for four years, and now I'm a fourth year out.

Tech>truth but truth still matters. I vote off the flow, but if an argument is stupid and your opponent makes a decent argument as to why, I’m going to buy their extensions.
Speed: Don’t spread but otherwise go as fast as you want. Add me to an email chain if you want to be sure I’ll catch everything adigedebate@gmail.com

Traditional Debate

Framework matters; doesn’t matter what it is but link into the winning framework if you want offense for me to vote on.

I appreciate good evidence analysis/indicts, impact comparisons, weighing, etc.

Circuit Debate

CPs: Totally willing to hear a good counterplan. Pretty receptive to condo bad args so keep that in mind.
DAs: Same with CPs
Ks: I'm okay with some Ks but I'm not familiar with a lot of K lit. Don’t expect that I’m going to understand your K if it’s pretty dense/complicated. Also I don’t really love pre-fiat Ks and would rather not hear one if you’re going to run a K. In general, I would suggest you not run a K in front of me because I probably won't do justice to it.
Phil: I probably won’t understand it.
Theory: I’m willing to listen to theory arguments. I don’t care for theory structure all too much and I dislike disclosure theory.

Please make the debate accessible. If your opponent is not familiar with circuit structure/is a novice, don’t just use that to win the round. You can make whatever arguments you want but do it in a way that allows your opponent to engage with it.

Don’t be afraid to ask any questions!

Mark Ahlstrom STA/Vis

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:27 AM CST

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

TLDR (my round is starting):

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

Decision Calculus

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

Tendencies

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

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

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

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

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

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

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

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

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Jane Ahmann St. Croix Prep

Sabrina Ali Apple Valley High School None

Zayna Amanat Wayzata None

Sam Anderson Eagan High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 1:49 PM CST

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

Background

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

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

Sections/State 2025 Updates

- I've updated my locals paradigm at the bottom, not with new rules or constraints but more detailed thoughts on how I tend to judge and how you should try to win my ballot.

- Topic note: obviously this topic cannot be debated as a "general principle", which is my preferred approach to traditional LD. I strongly prefer that the 1AC choose to unconditionally defend UNCLOS, ICC, or both (really, choosing just one is better, although that's just a personal preference), and think it is clearly the "framer's intent" to give the affirmative pre-round rather than in-round flexibility in choice of advocacy. As such, I think it's appropriate for me to vote on theory arguments introduced by the negative to enforce this norm and deter shenanigans.

- MSHSL rules state that LD and PF debaters "should" read oral full source citations, while all debaters "must" be able to provide written full source citations: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-2025-debate-rules-and-policies.pdf. My understanding is that the word "should" typically denotes a recommendation, as opposed to shall/must which imply a mandate (see, e.g.: https://www.rpharmy.com/blog/should-shall-must-interpreted). Accordingly, I will not be voting on the MSHSL full source rule until this ambiguity has been resolved.

- That being said, author qualifications are an important aspect of evidence comparison, and I encourage you to raise this as a substantive, rather than procedural, issue.

General Info

I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.
I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).
I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.
As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.
I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.
As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.
Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.
I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.
Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

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

The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.
Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".
For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.
I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.
I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.
Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).
K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

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

There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.
Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.
Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.
I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.
Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.
Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).
Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.
I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.
Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.
There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.
I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.
Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.
Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.
Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.
RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Non-negotiables

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

Traditional LD Paradigm

This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)
I have at times had a pretty extreme neg bias this year (2024-25), and this mostly comes down to me likely being stricter when it comes to rebuttals than most judges, and in particular when it comes to impacts and weighing. The 1AR and 2AR need to extend everything necessary for your offense to function -- identify a harm in the status quo, tell me why it's bad, tell me why affirming solves (or go for deontological offense). On every component of this story, you should be comparative where necessary -- tell me why your offense outweighs your opponent's, why the reasons you do solve are stronger than the reasons you don't, etc. The negative needs to do this as well, but given the nature of LD speech times, it's much more likely that the neg ends up with some piece of uncontested offense.

Take a standard affirmative argument on the wealth tax topic, that it would raise substantial revenue that would be put towards social programs. Sometimes the affirmative blows past solvency, not explaining why the amount of revenue raised outweighs the negative fiscal impacts from administrative costs, capital flight, etc. Sometimes the affirmative blows past the impact, just saying "trillions will be spent on social programs" without explaining why that matters or why that's a more important internal link to poverty than a loss of wages and jobs. In these rounds, unless I think the affirmative is beating the neg on every one of these arguments, the threshold for "the aff wins X but the neg wins Y, there's no comparison between X and Y so it's at worst a wash, I vote neg on Z" is a lot lower.

For example, compare the following extensions:

"Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade."

"Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade, this comes from a model that assumes a 15% avoidance/evasion rate based on European studies which already accounts for their solvency takeouts."

The first gives me little to work with which spells trouble if you drop a solvency takeout, while the second drastically lowers the threshold for aff responses to solvency takeouts.

So to win my ballot, first, extend impacts. Don't just leave it at "affirming solves democracy / climate change / economic inequality / etc.", give explicit reasons why these things matter. I won't do that for you. Second, weigh. Weighing is not just extending your impact and saying it outweighs on magnitude/probability, it requires comparative analysis between your offense and your opponent's. These two are really important -- there have been several rounds where I voted neg but thought a 2AR that spent about 20 extra seconds extending their impact and doing explicit comparison would have cleanly won. Finally, you'll likely need to collapse more. It's rare that the 2AR goes for two pieces of contested AC offense and I think that was a good idea -- more often it means you're skimping on necessary extensions/weighing, dropping line-by-line responses, or undercovering the NC, unless the neg has made major errors or you are significantly more technical than they are.

Sarah Aspelin Chaska High School

Last changed on Sat November 6, 2021 at 6:16 AM CST

hey all, i have four years experience competing in traditional LD (some nat circ LD, competed at congress quals and watched a few pf rounds). i am a 2021 graduate from chanhassen high school in mn and i use she/her pronouns.

questions, comments, concerns, speech docs: sarahaspelin@gmail.com

TLDR: flay, be nice, have fun!!

yall take notes when i give feedback

please make the round a safe place. if you feel unsafe in the round, please just let me know (you can send me a separate email, chat, or mention it in the round, or however makes you feel most comfortable), and i will intervene.

if you are discussing a serious topic please provide a trigger warning in the form of a question, and have a backup case. do not feel bad if u want to opt out of your opponents trigger warning.

(unless their tabroom account specifies pronouns) only refer to your opponent as “my opponent”, “aff/neg” or “they/them”, one time I heard “my enemy” so that's a fun way to get docked in speaks.

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

if you're a progressive/circuit debater and you're debating a traditional debater/someone who is significantly less experienced than you, you should adjust your style so that there can be an actual debate (spreaders should always have an alternative case). you're going to have to use your best judgment here, but if you read arguments that your opponent clearly won't be prepared to engage with, i'm likely to drop your speaks or intervene against you.

you can time yourselves, finish your sentence after time, if your opponent is going over let me know by flashing ur hand or showing ur timer

general substantive preferences:

cx is binding, anything you say during cx can and should come back during rebuttals. it doesn't get flowed but i'm listening.
please link back to framework. please please please. if you don't link, i can't weigh. write my ballot for me. however, winning the framework is not a voting issue.
i LOVE framework debates. love love love them. if you can give me a really good, clean, well thought out framework debate from both debaters, expect a double 30
i hate hate hate value debates and i honestly don’t even care if you link to a value in rebuttal. if it were up to me everyone would be running standards only
tech stuff; SIGNPOST, roadmap, extend, number your responses, voting issues, world comparison, crystallization, dont drop turns etc.
your counterplan needs competition- why it is mutually exclusive to the neg.
a lot of phil debates in LD seem like they have a large number of very underdeveloped arguments. i think you're better off making fewer, better-explained arguments in front of me. (i'd prefer 3 well justified and implicated reasons why util is bad over 7 one-sentence calc indicts)
i do not believe in deontology so simple responses will do it for me (as long as you cover everything on their fw flow)
extinction is probably bad, any impact turns like racism good etc will result in L20, conversation after round, and email to your coach

speaker points

diction, fluidity, passion, cx and overall knowledge of ur case and the topic
be respectful otherwise automatic 26 or lower speaks
27 fine, 28 good, 29 very good, 30 wow

nat circ

kritiks, counterplans, aff plans, spikes, theory, multiple offs etc. are all things i can understand, however if you run a conditional off i am likely to vote with your opponent if their argument is simply that having too many is unfair.
i'm probably not familiar with your specific lit on a K, so make sure that you can explain your arguments in terms that a normal person can understand.
K affs should make it very clear what their advocacy is and why it does something other than say that the thing they critique is bad.
not a fan of voting on spikes/tricks because u hid them throughout and your opponent didn't have enough time. also also i know you did not write them yourself. do not try to act like you did.
i am a fan of deep rooted philosophy, just explain it to me well
flexprep is gucci for clarification

evidence standards

i get some methodology is hard to find but you should at least have something prepared if your opponent asks for it
if you don't have the full cite or can't pull up the original doc i will not count it in the debate simply tell me there is no proof of evidence and ill drop it

public forum

you can mostly apply the stuff above
your evidence standards for studies are probably higher than mine, i see a lot of pf that is just about methodology, that is important but shouldn't be all of your voting issues

congress

overall:

Address every member as Senator or Representative (if I hear you call a femme-presenting member of the chamber "ma'am," while masculine-presenting members are "Senator," you will be ranked down.)
I pay attention to your questions (my favorite thing in LD)- ask ones that advance the round, not just because you haven't given a speech recently

Please coordinate a docket before round that you know people have speeches somewhat prepped... no one likes awkward silence when the PO asks for speakers. *Covid-update* if you're pitching a docket and haven't had the ability to chat pre-round, put some thought into what has the most obvious clash and pref those bills

Speeches:

Organization. Know when it's time to move on to crystallizations. I want at least two solid points with rebuttals throughout.
Content. If you're one of those kids who hates when people refer to Congress as a speech category, do your part and implement clash. Starting at the first neg, you should be refuting previous speaker's points with each successive speech. I would even appreciate procatalepsis in the first aff. It's painful when we're 8 speeches in and someone stands up to give a speech will all new points and no sense of a rebuttal. I would rather a somewhat rushed/couple stumbles with amazing content than a flawless presentation with no substance.
Delivery. Have passion. Show me you care. When you mention statistics, act like you care about the people they're representing. I want to see variety in hand gestures. *Covid-update* please still give extemporaneous speeches. I shouldn't be able to tell you're reading a pre-written speech verbatim from another screen.
Time. Be mindful of time, but if you're under 3:15, I'm not going to penalize you a full point or anything. Timing also helps in the organization of your speech--2:30 on your first point and 0:30 on your second? :/

POs:

I firmly believe in ranking the PO, unless there have been a number of mistakes made! You set the tone and energy of the round, so please keep the vibe up and don't condescend to the members of the chamber. Keep track of your precedence and recency, including questioning/direct. Make your time signals noticeable. There will be additional consideration for POs who ask the name pronunciation of each speaker before the session. Be aware of potential needs of the chamber (seating, mobility, volume level, visual time signals, etc.)

Nina Baker Lakeville South High School

Simren Bhatia Eden Prairie High School None

Priscilla Bunday Minnetonka High School

Laurel Carter Apple Valley High School 8 rounds None

Ashley Chen Eagan High School

Tom Cogswell St. Croix Prep None

Elyse Colihan Roseville Area High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 8:39 AM CST

Email for chains: elysecolihan@gmail.com. Feel free to email as well if you have any questions.

Update: talking fast is fine by me, but a lot of spreading I've heard recently has been REALLY difficult to understand, PLEASE slow down if you can. If I miss arguments because I can't understand you, I can't flow them or weigh them when judging. PLEASE SLOW DOWN! PLEASE BE EXTRA CLEAR!

Hi all! I did 2 years of LD and 2 years of policy in high school (so I generally judge both), graduated 2019, and have been judging regularly during the debate season since then. I graduated recently from DePaul University in Chicago.

Basic things: generally fine with whatever round you want to have as long as both teams agree. Ok with tag-teaming, flex prep, sitting down or standing, spreading or not spreading. I am not super strict on debate formalities and will only judge you on the substance of the debate (and if you are mean to your opponent - that will hurt you!). Include me on the chain or don’t, I don’t mind either way.

The most important thing to know is I would prefer to hear whatever case you ENJOY running and are comfortable with. Though I love weird and interesting cases, if you would rather run a stock arg, I have no issue voting for you! Unless an argument is egregiously overtly offensive, I will vote for it if you win it. I am not a judge that will automatically throw out any type of argument regardless of my own feelings about it.

Don’t be mean or talk over your opponent (policy: this includes discussing with your partner during opponent speeches, please don’t do that, pass notes if you must). Explain your arguments well (don’t just read cards, explain how they work together to make a point). I LOVE a well done summary of the round, at the end of every speech if you have time, but most critically in final speeches. Slow down for tags and signposting.

More specific stuff:

I’m pretty familiar with common philosophy cases in debate and should be able to keep up just fine. I love a good K debate, and even more, I love a good weird case debate (I loved running biopower, wipeout, and timecube in high school). If you go this route, you still have to fully explain and develop your arguments even if you assume I’m familiar with it. Also, PLEASE don’t neglect framing and PLEASE tie your framing into EVERYTHING if you are doing a K debate. Lastly, if an argument hinges on your opponent's identities (race, gender, class, etc) alone, I would just rather you not run it. "They are __ so they can't __" is not a good argument for me.

I don’t like tricky cases. If you win, you win, but it’s much more enjoyable for all of us if you win on substance rather than cheap tricks. As such, topicality and abuse claims are fine with me when warranted. They MUST BE IN A SHELL, you can’t just make a quick abuse claim without explaining and move on. Though I don’t like silly abuse cases, if I’m hearing a really pointed a priori or try or die that completely obliterates opponent ground, it definitely makes me a little sad when someone doesn’t call it out as abusive. So go for it if you must! I support you!

I do think there is a big difference between policy and LD (outside of partners) and do think “we are in X type of debate not Y” is a valid argument sometimes.

In the interest of accessibility in debate, please err on the side of over explaining. It’s so easy to get caught up in debate jargon, and I often see novices competing at higher levels for the first time PANIC when this happens. If you are using debate terms (i.e. PIC, RVI, LAW, condo, etc.) please briefly explain them. If you hear something you don’t understand, never be afraid to ask (I am good with flex prep for this reason), and if someone asks you BE KIND! Everyone is at a different level and debate should always be an educational activity first and foremost.

Last thing: if you are a novice debating for the first time or competing at a higher level for the first time, please don’t panic! We have all been there (and as judges, seen it a million times), we have all looked silly and nervous and lost in rounds before, it’s a part of the process! Just know I understand, I’m not judging you for it, and I’m excited to see you learn and thrive. You got this! If you are at a higher level going against a novice, PLEASE BE NICE AND ENCOURAGING! I have seen these types of rounds go awry too many times. EVERYONE BE NICE!

Ron Davis St Michael Albertville High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:23 AM CST

Judge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.

I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.

I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.

Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.

Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.

Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.

Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.

Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.

Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.

My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.

Debbie Fenlason Denfeld High School

Emily Geiss Blaine None

Mercedes Hamilton St Francis HS None

Leo Hickey Edina High School

Last changed on Sat December 17, 2022 at 4:36 AM EST

I'm Leo. Any pronouns. email is lhickey@vassar.edu, add me to the doc please!

I debated the LD circuit for Edina for 4 years, to occasional success.

tldr i'm open minded(tech > truth, progressive debate good) but be clear, I've been out of the loop with circuit for a few years and might not know all the tech. don't pref me if your strategy for winning the round relies on me understanding of your intricately teched spikes or the current LD meta.

I'll flow what i can but at the end of the day if you want me to judge the round fairly make sure I can keep up with what's being said. Debate how ever you like in front of me, but don't forgo verbal clarity.

As a rule of thumb I'd say Ks and phil 1, larp 2, anything else 3. but really the clarity of your offs are much more important that content. I love a creative aff.

I debated mostly Ks and phil on the circuit. I love Ks. please win a warranted link and maybe shift your K strat slightly more into ballot story over tech for me so i can follow. A good K shouldn't have to guilt trip me.

I am a phil major and tend to be partial to phil debates where the substance actually matters. as such I would rather you actually engage with the substance of the phil clash instead of reading generic and/or meaningless cards. I tend toward thinking that continental phil warrants are substantive. feel free to uplayer your theory; critical & prefiat args aren't automatically util or exempt from framework.

If you read an actual value criterion and uplayer it to the opponent's crit framing/theory/spikes that would be funny and make for a cool debate i think.

Policy is chill, I'll have the topic knowledge to follow. you must win PICs good. Please weigh lots

Read theory/spikes/tricks at your own risk; I'm not biased against them and often think they're strategic if they aren't used abusively, I frankly just run the risk of being confused and not following. I won't vote on blips though. It's hard to see me voting on tricks unless the path to the ballot is made very clear. If you're reading theory that doesn't correlate with meaningful abuse the bar for beating back the shell is quite low.

Bigotry is a drop.

Be kind, much love <3

Doug Hoverson STA/Vis

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:16 AM CST

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

(Update January 2025: I have only been coaching a little this year judged no rounds during the invitational and will be a bit rusty. Not clueless, but any new theories or trends will need a bit more explanation. My flowing speed may also be down about 5-10%.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arush Iyer Eagan High School

Pranita Keenigi Eden Prairie High School None

Anya Khandpur Mahtomedi

Kevin Kirkeby Eden Prairie High School

Ankitha Kumar Eagan High School

Last changed on Wed October 13, 2021 at 2:29 AM CST

Eagan '21

Emory '25

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

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

Important

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

Traditional Stuff

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

Circuit Stuff

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

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

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

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

Other

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

Make sure to weigh!!
One good argument > Many meh arguments
Slow down on tags and author names
Signpost clearly about where you are

Speaks

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

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

Please be nice! Debate should be fun!

Matthew Kumar-Montei Edina High School

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 11:28 AM CST

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

tl;dr for prefs:

topical K - 1

non-topical K, Phil, Policy - 2

everything else - 3

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

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

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

General Other Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semaj Lee Apple Valley High School None

Danian Liu Eden Prairie High School None

Jane Michaelson Apple Valley High School

Smaran Misra Eden Prairie High School

Rahil Modi Edina High School

Last changed on Fri November 6, 2020 at 9:31 AM CST

Add me to the email chain: rahil820@gmail.com

Background: I did LD for Edina High School for 5 years (1.5 on the national circuit). I also competed in extemp for 2 years. I'm a second-year-out and I've mostly judged local circuit debate, so my preferences on national circuit debate will likely continue to change as time goes on.

General stuff

With the exception of tricks, I'm fine with any position you run. I did mostly policy style debating throughout my career, so I'm familiar with mostly policy stuff. I dabbled in a little bit of philosophy (kant, virtue ethics) and a little bit of critical literature, but I haven't been exposed to it a lot so I'm relatively unfamiliar with a lot of the arguments. If you want to run these dense critical/philosophical positions in front of me, you need to explain and impact these very well (so that a 10-year old could understand them) if you want me to vote for you.

Also, I will immediately vote you down if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. in the round and I'll reach out to your coach. Procedural safety is my number one priority since I believe debate should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their background.

For local circuit debaters - put emphasis on your "voting-issue" arguments so that it's clear to me how you want me to vote. Do this, and your speaks will increase. Also, make sure to actually respond to your opponent's arguments effectively and weigh your impacts against theirs. This is the biggest thing I see lacking in local circuit debate and your speaks will improve if you do this (you'll likely win too).

Online Debate

Please slow down on tags and important warrants/impacts. Unpredictable things can happen which can cause lost rounds, and none of us want that to happen, so please be very clear on the arguments you think I should vote for.

Record all of your speeches and send them to everyone in the round after you're done in case your audio or connection goes out. If you don't there's pretty much nothing I can do since you can't restart your speech.

Nov-Dec 2020

Not too familiar with this topic, so please explain nuanced arguments clearly.

Avrora Moussorlieva Minnetonka High School

Rahul Nath Mahtomedi

Last changed on Mon January 16, 2023 at 3:00 PM CST

About Me:

Hi, I'm Rahul! I did traditional LD at Mahtomedi HS for 3 years, where I participated in locals. This is going to be mildly specific in case you really want to figure out how to play to the judge, but as a TL;DR: run whatever makes you happy, don't be mean, and have fun.

Since I'm not doing debate anymore, assume that my knowledge on topics is minimal during early season — but if I'm judging the novice nukes topic, I'll know my stuff.

I'll default speaks at 27.5 and adjust accordingly. For novices, I'll default to 28.5 earlier in the season since I understand how hard it can be to deliver speeches when starting out.

Generalities about in-round arguments:

Overall: Tech > Truth; I'll only ever intervene if you're being blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic/etc.

IMPORTANT: PLEASE EXTEND CLEARLY!!!! It's really annoying when people implicitly extend cards or contentions by just talking about it in their rebuttals — I will love you so much if you literally tell me something like "extend [card name] which tells you [brief summary]." Bonus points if you can weigh while you're at it.

Phil: I'm familiar with most phil positions you may think of running. Ask me before round if you're worried something may be too odd, but honestly as long as you explain it well enough, I'll be willing to vote on it. If anything, I'd appreciate hearing new phil positions since it's one of my favourite kinds of debate.

LARPing: Go for it, just please make your impact scenarios realistic. Giving public officials a right to privacy isn't going to cause a thermonuclear war in which everyone dies. If you think you could tell a random friend "[topic] will lead to [impact]," and they wouldn't laugh at your face, you're doing just fine. I won't intervene if it's a wild impact — I just won't like it.

Ks: Just explain the K clearly, especially if it's pomo or something dense. I understand orientalism, baudy, cap, setcol, postcol, and so on; but if it's obvious you're reading a K just to confuse your opponent (or you don't know what you're talking about), that's not a good sign.

Theory: If it's frivolous or ridiculous like "must not wear shoes," I'll laugh with you and up your speaks a little, but I probably wouldn't buy it unless your opponent REALLY messes up. Otherwise, real in-round issues are fair game.

Miscellaneous Stuff:

A clever joke could be the difference between you getting a 29.5 or 30! try to have fun with the round

I like jokes in rebuttals; being funny alleviates a lot of the pressure in rounds and debate is something you should have fun with anyway. Good puns are very helpful considering how immensely boring some of these topics can be.

I dislike PICs very much and you'll probably want to well warrant it if you run it in front of me. Plans I'm okay with, but if it's extra-T, a few well-warranted arguments in the 1NR may be all you need to convince me to boot the AC.

Evidence ethics are huge for me. As much as I may feel the urge to intervene if you're misrepresenting evidence, I won't down you if your opponent doesn't call you out on it. That being said, I'll tank your speaks so please don't misrepresent authors or power tag a ton.

If you run util and say "util is trutil" at any point in time, I'll probably up your speaks by about 0.5 of what it would be otherwise.

Don't just weigh your contention level impacts, explain the framework level too. Why does extending Goodin 95/Actor-Spec mean you win framework? Explain the broader purposes of these cards in relation to the round.

pls don't make me vote on presumption im literally begging you do not make me vote on presumption unless you want to see me start hysterically sobbing at the end of the round

Abby Newman Chaska High School

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 5:28 AM CST

Hi y’all, I’m Abby (she/her), a first year out that competed locally in Minnesota for three years. Never bid but did qualify to NSDA nationals my senior year if that matters to you. I’m a freshman at George Washington University and am on the mock trial team there.

If someone’s starting a chain please throw me on it: agnewman43@gmail.com Yes, anything you are sending your opponent I also want.

I’m not coaching, barely judging, and, outside of nationals, I haven’t seriously competed since January of 2021, so cut me some slack. I can’t even tell you what the resolution is and I haven’t flowed anything close to spreading speed in over a year - do with this information what you will.

Handful of important things:

I will not weigh or link arguments to framework for you - that is your job. If you don’t weigh or link, I have no idea what I’m supposed to do with your arguments and they functionally become dropped.

CX is binding even if you think I’m not paying attention because trust me I am. That said, I only flow debate proper so if cx concessions are like round-endingly important bring it up in rebuttal.

Signposting is necessary. I like pretty flows, don’t make me sad
I used to be pretty bomb at flowing high speeds but I don’t trust myself to do that anymore - I'll do my best to hold up my flow to the camera if you need to chill out. If I don’t get it on my flow because you went too fast or were unclear, I won’t vote on it no matter how much you post-round me.
Explain your phil. I have no background and I hate almost all of it but seeing someone do it well is pretty cool so just know what you’re talking about and we should be fine.
If no one read values anymore I would be the happiest girl in the world. I hate them. Do not have a value debate in front of me. Speaks will tank.
I want a roadmap but “now for a brief off time road map” will make me log off and close my computer please don’t
Be good people. I really don't want to have to send emails to coaches but I can and I will - don't make things harder on yourself.

That being said, feel free to throw pretty much anything at me content wise. I’m a sucker for policy style arguments in particular and am perfectly happy to flow and vote for them even locally at the JV and varsity levels. I'll disclose unless anyone objects. Feel free to email me before or after the round with any questions at the address above. FB messenger also works too.

If for some reason you find me judging your PF round, my apologies. Blame tab. Most of the above probably still applies. I like the idea of grand cross but I hate yelling so please keep voices to a non-horrific level. If you are too good/too techy/I have no idea what is happening, assume I will email my flow to Ekaanth Veerakumar and make him do the heavy lifting so I'd recommend you refer to his paradigm instead.

Rob Olson St Michael Albertville High School

Alex Owens Rosemount Sr High School

Last changed on Fri December 4, 2020 at 8:58 AM CST

Hi! My name's Alex Owens (pronouns: he/him). If you need to add me to an email chain, use this one: atkdjp27@gmail.com

As for my experience, I am a third year LD debater at Rosemount High School. I've debated mostly on the traditional circuit, but I do have some familiarity with nat circuit style.

As a general rule, please be nice to your opponents. I'm fine with some sass during cross-ex, but please keep things civil. At the end of the day, debate is a game.

Preferences for specific strats:

Stock: As I've said, I'm most experienced with traditional LD, so I can handle basically anything you throw at me here.

Plans/Counterplans/Disads: I'm fine with all of these. As far as counterplans go, I'm definitely not a fan of condo. If your CP is condo, I'm generally gonna be receptive to condo bad arguments, so do what you will with that knowledge. If you run a PIC, I will also be pretty receptive to an abuse arg from the aff. If you run a disad, just make sure you have clear links and it should be fine.

Kritiks: I'm definitely not super familiar with most of the K lit out there. If you're gonna run a K, make sure you clearly explain it. Otherwise, I likely won't be able to understand what your argument is.

Spreading: If you're in front of me, I don't recommend spreading. If you're going too fast, I will say slow twice before I stop flowing.

Theory: If you're gonna go for theory, I probably won't go for a drop the debater unless there is serious abuse occurring in round. I'm fine with drop the arg as long as you clearly explain and extend the shell. I recommend against disclosure theory because it's almost always a cheap tactic to suck up the opponent's time. If you run theory, please make sure your arguments are well thought-out.

As a rule, just remember to weigh your impacts clearly and tell your story. Once again, don't take things too seriously. I know rounds can get heated, but acting like you and your opponent have a blood feud spoils the fun for everyone. Just remember to be kind and considerate.

Josie Pacheco St. Croix Prep None

Ella Papp Minnetonka High School

Eshaan Patel Forest Lake Sr High School

Last changed on Wed November 25, 2020 at 5:34 AM CST

Put me on the email chain! eshaanpatel1@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Eshaan! I use he/him pronouns. I am mostly a traditional debater from Forest Lake High School. I have debated for 4 years. I have competed in every category so I am pretty well versed in debate spheres.

I am going to say this off the bat: I am not well-rendered in circuit debate. I can handle counter plans, disads, and that is it. If you plan on running deeper circuit cases (k's, theory), I would recommend not doing that because it will be hard for me to want to vote for you.

Stock

I am good with traditional debate. I need to see some heavy weighing and extending. Please do not make an extension and then not tell me why I should extend it. If it is a specific card, tell me what impact this holds and how this outweighs your opponent. I love framework debate so please interact with your opponent's framework.

***Winning framework does not mean you automatically have the ballot! Link and weigh under frameworks.

Counterplans/Disads

I am fine with these. Please do not run theory or K along with this. I am pretty open to condo bad arguments so take that as you will.

Kritiks

Please do not run these. I think it would be okay if you ran a very light K that is not super dense, but you need to do some explaining. If your opponent is easily confused by this, be diplomatic and take the time to clear things up in cross x.

Phil

Do not run this because I will not know what you are talking about lol.

Theory

I am not familiar with T at all. I do not like the disclosure bad cards many like to read so I wouldn't go for that card. If there is abuse in the round (which I will most likely be aware of), you can point that out and make args, but do not go in and tell me I am voting on this theory stuff because I won't.

Speed

If you are planning on spreading, not ideal seeing as we are virtual. Be accomodating of your opponent. But if you do spread, email cases to your opponent and I.

Other things to be aware of

Do not be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. It will tank your speaks and I will not be receptive to voting for you.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Give me 3-4 solid reasons why I need to vote for you. I am not going to pick that out of your 2AR or 2NR on my own. Leave enough time to list out a couple voter issues or else it will be hard for me to know why to vote for you.

When beginning prep time or starting a speech, make sure to let your opponent and your judge know when you are starting that. Do not just rush into it.

I award speaker points based off how well your strategy is on your rebuttal structures. Number your responses. That is one of the best ways to be clear and organized in your speaking.

Have fun! Make the debate enjoyable for your opponent and I. Please ask any questions before the round I am more than willing to answer them :)

Sreya Patri Eden Prairie High School None

Kirill Pernatiy Apple Valley High School None

Kaelyn Pewowaruk Rosemount Sr High School

Alexis Posel East Ridge High School None

Kris Qiu Wayzata

Anna Rekow Chanhassen High School

Cori Roberts Apple Valley High School

Last changed on Sat October 2, 2021 at 4:38 AM CST

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated October 2nd, 2021

Joe Schmitt Edina High School

Joann Southwell Apple Valley High School None

Ezana Tedla Hopkins High School

Bianca Turman Eagan High School

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 7:11 AM EST

Hi, I use she/they pronouns

Experience: I debated LD all throughout high-school, I mainly did traditional but I dabbled (and I say that generously) in circuit before. I also have a general idea of other debate events (policy, PF, Congress). I have been coaching speech and debate for four years.

Speed: It’s fine, if you’re going to spread I’d like to be on the email chain.

Disclosure of round result: Yes, so long as it's okay with all participants, but I won't disclose speaker points.

Framework: If you're doing an extremely complex, esoteric framework, I expect that you can explain it well. If you don't know the arguments you shouldn't be running them. Please be sure to slow down on tags. Please impact clearly. Even if framework gets conceded at the beginning of the round I still want to see how it interacts in the debate. I will never evaluate a framework that validates oppression, discrimination, death etc.

Ks: Make sure your RoB is clear and actually feasible. I am not a fan of K affs. Please try to run something topical. I am not well-versed in K literature.

Theory: I like tech over truth. If there is a legitimate abuse in the debate space then go for theory and I will 100% vote on it. Please don't just run 3 theory shells for time sucks. Slow down a little on RVIs please. In saying that, please don't make me do too much judge intervention.

CPs/Plans: Make sure it's topical, make sure it's competitive. I'm fine with conditional CPs. Slow down on the plan text please and be sure its well-explained.

DAs/Advs: Make sure it's topical. If you want to run it as a normal contention I do not care.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author. If you don’t read credentials that is fine.

Speed: I’ll tolerate it to an extent. No spreading. I don’t judge on presentation but I think PF is meant to be accessible to the public and spreading doesn’t really promote that.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author, though I prefer to have credentials too. I only really call cards if it is contested in-round/it is absolutely integral to my decision. I will give 3 minutes (with the exception of uncontrollable circumstances such as bad wifi or a paywall) to procure called evidence before I start docking speaks. If it takes more than 10 minutes (again aside from uncontrollable circumstances) I will drop the card and any other cards from that author.

Standards: I expect clear, concrete arguments for why I should prefer your standard. Link all arguments to your standard and tell me why it matters. I want all voters to be cleanly extended through to the final focus.

Theory/CP/Kritiks: I don't like them at all in PF. If your opponent makes an argument about it being abusive, I’ll likely vote on it. If you’re running them I expect your arguments to be well-explained and cleanly extended.

Cross: Be respectful. I flow it and consider it binding. However, I will only evaluate what is said in cross on the ballot if it is brought up in a speech.

Arguments: You can go for just about anything though I really really would prefer it to be topical. For me to vote an argument I want the uniqueness, impact and link to be extended. I won’t vote on any argument without a warrant.

General

If you do anything to intentionally disrespect someone I will automatically drop you. Let's keep debate a safe space for everyone.

Trigger warnings! If you don’t provide a trigger warning for a topic that needs one, use good judgement, I will dock speaks or drop the argument depending on how severe the content is.

gatlingdoescollege@gmail.com for any email chains

Ginger Williams Moorhead High School

Login to Tabroom

MDTA JVNovice State Championship

2020 — Online, MN/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges