heyo im heden (she/her) -- hedena222@gmail.com add me to the email chain

I debated for eagen all 4 years of high school(2017-2021), I mostly did policy arguments but I'm willing to hear most arguments as long as you aren't intentionally disrespecting someone in the round.

If you know what you are talking about and can explain it well enough, I'm willing to vote on it.

speed is fine as long as you are clear - if you are not clear, I'm not going to flow 

I'm chill with whatever, but if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me via email or before the round.

Hi good morning folks, im Aidan! put me on email chains if yall are doing that, other than that, I debate at Eagan, and thats my experience, here is a paradigm you should actually read this link https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=96556

UPDATED FOR NEW TRIER 2020

Tim Edstrom
Edina High School, MN

Rounds on Topic: Around 20
Debate Experience: 16 Years
Coaching Experience: 10 Years
Judging Experience: 12 years

Masculine or gender neutral pronouns.

Chain? Yes. thegesture@gmail.com

STUFF FOR DIGITAL DEBATE

Overall I have found these to run smoothly for the most part. Everyone has to be willing to have the speech time stop and possibly give part of/the whole speech over depending on the level of lag or crash. Most tournaments have some tech time built in so don't worry if you drop the call- just patiently sign back in and we can figure it out as a room how to approach finishing your speech. If I can't hear you I will SAY SOMETHING as well as PUT IT IN THE CHAT.

The good news- I do flow and will probably have a very good idea of where I lost my ability to understand you. My internet has been pretty consistent but not perfect- hopefully I won't have many problems on my end but if I do drop out or lag badly PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHAT because I may not be able to hear it. This is also an important reason to pay attention to my video- if my head stops moving completely and I don't blink it probably means my signal cut.

Stylistically some changes are definitely necessary- in particular slowing down and being clear, especially on extremely dense blocks of analytics or wordy tags (some people are recommending a percentage of speed or something- it's really more you want to seek max clarity). Additionally, cross-x is tough when people talk over each other, and tag team cross-x is possible but more difficult. Sadly we may have to revert to some politeness norms of "Excuse me" etc to get our question/answer in and trust me, trying to orient towards a cross-x where I can actually hear what people are explaining makes the debate better for all.

OLD MEAT AND POTATOES PARADIGM- MICHIGAN 2019

I think the value of debate is in its incredible ability to help people learn not only about the world around them but also about themselves. Debate is not only what happens in the debate round, but also all of the attendant things that surround and go into the debates and the performance of the debaters: their work, their thoughts about their arguments, their partnerships, their coaches, personal relationships, stress of school, family life, upbringing, privilege, ethnic or racial identity, orientation etc etc etc. I mention this first and foremost because you should definitely understand that I connect to you in the difficulty of this activity and can appreciate that sometimes debate is so overly stressful, you might make a mistake, might say something wrong, or might be off your game. I will take into account the relative difficulty of the tournament and your place in it in my evaluation of speaks and the round.

Debate judges are not robots or argument calculators: we have feelings just like you. I do not believe that debate is merely a technostrategic forum for the comparison of cold and static policy ideals. Please know that I think beliefs like this are not only harmful, but seriously make me question people's actual grasp of what this activity is and can mean for people. The benefits of debate have been guarded by wealth, race, and heteronormative gender elitism for decades (and I am no exception to this rule- white masculine pronoun using individual here from a relatively privileged background) but I would like to think I can entertain the notion that we can use the space to examine some of the ideas that we have about the world around us and that actually effect us as people rather than pretending that the only importance of a debate is whether or not a policy would be successful. If we can't examine those questions in debate, I am of the opinion that debate can't really change. And it is, and it will, but it's slow and a long road and a hard fight. It's easy to lose hope.

Lest you turn away in anger because you want to just plain read a DA- that's awesome! I still very much enjoy and am compelled by what some call "traditional debate" and judge all sorts of rounds on the national circuit. I like politics DAs, cleverly researched case negatives, and impact turns. All arguments should strive to emphasize evidence quality and internal warrants, and comparison of these are one of the key ways to a ballot and good speaks for me.

I am generally a bit affirmative leaning on theory as many times process based counterplans stretch the definition of what could be called a solvency advocate and actively seek obscure terms on which to condition the plan. I do love PICs however, and think that they can lead to some of the most interesting debating. If it's going to be a theory debate, please slow down a bit- I want to be able to actually flow the reasons I should vote for you. Generally I find I am compelled to vote for the team that not only best explains their impact but also how it relates to the other impacts in the round, whether policy or critical.

I judge a lot of clash of civilization debates as well- just a note for these: a creatively explained TVA is much better than a generic text with little explanation of how it actually "solves the affirmative." I would like you to actually make an effort to interact with the warrants of the affirmative.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have. I'll do my best to accommodate your debating in any way I can. This activity is for the debaters and not the judges, and I will strive to make sure my decision reflects that philosophy. Have fun and good luck!

Hi! I'm Gabi, I've done policy debate at Wayzata for 4 years.

Please include me on the chain: gabifrants7@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL:
I'm fine with anything you run, I'm here to judge how you best debate. That being said, I debated mostly policy and basic Ks (think Agamben or abolition) during high school, so do with that what you will. I'm fine with theory, high theory Ks, planless affs, and just about anything else. I don't like time-wasters that you clearly aren't going to go for; don't run a one-card K or time cube in the 1nc, I will get annoyed.

notes for novice state:

i haven’t seen the novice packet. keep that in mind if there are any ev issues

Ks:
Lovely. I enjoy K debates more than policy, probably because they are more interesting. I love when people are passionate about Ks, it keeps me entertained. I do prefer Ks to have a good amount of cards. Also, specific links are good (and impact out your links). I will understand almost every K, as long as I get a base-level explanation of the thesis somewhere in your overview and if you can explain it in cx. Do not, for the love of god, run a K you know nothing about.

I will not judge-kick your alt for you, I default to weighing the aff unless I am proven otherwise.

K Affs/ FW:

Kaffs are good, please run one if that is your preferred argument, but they should somehow relate to the topic imo. I don't really like sneaky K cross-applications onto the FW flow, but I'll evaluate them (reluctant sigh).

I like FW. Try to clash with the aff if you can, but I get it if you can't. The aff is probably just really prepared to debate fw, so clash would be more strategic. Oh, and fairness is both an ! and i/l to education.

Topicality:

Love it. Go for it. Here are my biases: competing interps > reasonability, give me all the TVAs and case lists, make your Ts contextual to the topic, i will NOT evaluate plan text in a vacuum unless it is completely dropped (i hate that arg).

Theory:
I probably will only vote on condo and if there's a clear violation. I tend lean condo good; 2-3 conditional advocacies are okay, 5 are not. I did like winning condo 2ars a lot so, if you feel you out-teched the neg, go for it.

I will not evaluate ASPEC or stupid time-waste theory unless it is completely dropped. Please at least try to read arguments that don't make want to quit debate and write a manifesto on the absurdity of it.

DAs/ CPs:

DAs: yeah. just have a good link chain. tech over truth and all that stuff. link>UQ.

Cps: also yeah. i'll judge kick (you're welcome). make sure ur cps have solvency advocates, and don't make them have a million random planks. also, i am biased against sufficiency framing but you do you.

Speaker Points:

I like to think I'm generous with speaker points. Your points will come from clarity, confidence, organization, and kindness. If you take a lot of time to start your speech after prep, I will dock your speaks. If you are rude in cross, I will dock your speaks (I have a personal vendetta against unnecessary pettiness in cross). Also, don't be offensive. Edit your cards and blocks for problematic language. I also like if you're passionate and/or funny. I'm a human, entertain me.

If you read this far, thanks. Here's a poem I wrote:

Roses are red

Violets are blue

If I can't decipher your spreading

I won't vote for you :)

Hello, I'm MJ!

(they/them/theirs)

I think that the majority of paradigms out there are not a true reflection on how judges are going to vote for you. A paradigm tells you a lot about how judges want to fit in, their anxieties and how they want to be perceived in the debate community. Saying that you don’t have biases is false, especially when we take into account our subconscious. Being transparent with you is more important to me because I know how frustrating it is to have a lying judge. Meaning, the purpose of my paradigm is to be transparent and acknowledge how imma truly view this debate round.

I think it’s really fucking performative for non-Black debaters to run Black centered arguments when you have not taken action towards dismantling anti-Blackness. This topic is very complex and personal to some of us, take that into account when making arguments. Signal me 612-655-6531 if you are interested in getting involved.

I am dedicating my senior year to combat the structural inequalities within the debate space. If you would like to get involved please email me!

Yes, add me to the email chain: freeburgdebate@gmail.com

• Please feel free to email me with questions, concerns or if you need anything else! :)

PSA: Your mental health and well-being will always be more important than a debate round. If you are feeling overwhelmed, please let me know before the round and we will take it from there. If you are feeling anxious during the round to an extreme extent, please let me know. If you are unable to verbalize that, knock 3 times on the desk. However, please keep in mind the integrity in finishing the debate round as well.

Before the round starts, help me out by telling me your name, pronouns and speaker position!

Do not be a dick: not to me, your partner, in CX. I will stop the round if you are patronizing and call your bs out [If you are a cishet white male, please read that again]

• I have zero tolerance to arguments like homophobia good/racism good etc and will not hesitate to give you zero speaks and default the win to the other team

• Tag team CX is fine just don’t speak over your partner

You’ll start at 29+ Speaks, extra if you bring me snacks or send memes in your speech docs :)

Speed is fine just make sure you are comprehensible

Disclosure: Super important and good for small and large schools alike. Clash makes the debate better.

Read This For Prefs

Top Level: Please debate in the style that is the best for you. However, this past season I solely ran kritikal arguments and prefer kritikal debate rounds. I will still listen to a ‘traditional’ policy round, I just think that it produces a bad form of knowledge production and I’m persuaded by those arguments.

When judging, I believe Tech > Truth so…

• My opinion will not be a factor in my decision calculus whatsoever unless you are making blatantly harmful arguments ie: oppression good, etc

• Truth is technical when expressed properly--there is nothing wrong with establishing good ethos and pathos by weaving grand narratives within isolated framing questions of the debate.

• Small arguments that you can easily forget might just be the winning arguments when impacted out properly in opposition to the team’s large/structural claims. Most of the best arguments do not have cards. Trust yourself and that big brain of yours.

• Win the flow by evaluating competing claims in a meaningful way. Line by line > contextual overviews > your 5-minute pre-written overview Further, the flow allows me to sustain the best understanding of how the round went. I want as little judge intervention as possible so don’t rely on me reading the evidence alongside you without telling me to do so. I am guided by the round itself and will do what y’all tell me to do and only if you tell me.

• You should also definitely flash your analytics to your opponents, ESPECIALLY if you spread through them. Accessible clash debate is good!

• In the final speeches, do some nice impact calculus, collapse down on your winning arguments, and write my ballot out for me. Contextualize the round and tell me why I need to vote for you.

Other predispositions:

_____

The meaning and purpose of debate holds a special place in my heart as I founded my school’s first team in decades. As someone who is still in high school, joining debate has been one of the best decisions of my HS career. This is not necessarily from the debate rounds themselves but because of what I have learned about myself through debate’s molding. The benefits of debate don’t come just from reading at the speed of light and screaming about whether or not a nuke war will happen if we stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but from your overall experiences. Further, The value of debate does not come from how many bids you have, your team’s heg, your zip code, what camp you went to etc. I think the value of debate comes not just from its incredible ability to shape a person’s perceptions of the world around them, but also to teach someone about themselves and allow for growth and learning. Debate is so much more than what happens in the debate round, it’s all of the work that go into that affirmative, K file, and a debater’s overall competitive performance. However, debate is also all of the things that go on outside of the round. Debate is privilege. It’s all of the attendant things that surround the debate space: ethnic & racial & sexual identity, socioeconomic status, coaching, stress of school, family life, personal relationships, partnerships, the school you go to and the list goes on and on and on. As debaters, we throw around big stick impacts and utilitarian modes of thinking without questioning it whatsoever. Whether or not you think debate is a game, I think we can all agree that it is an unfair ‘game’--one that does not come with a set of rules or guidelines to make things equal for everyone enabling a headstart for somet. The establishment of your team, it’s funding, coaches, members, location, etc--matters, a lot. I bring this to your attention because debate is an awesome activity that all people deserve to be apart of, but lacks all forms of accessibility. This awareness is because I empathize with you as a debater. I want to refashion the way the debate space functions and allow for an equal playing field.

And, as a debater, this is why I lean towards kritikal arguments. I believe that the impacts that come out of K debate allow for better examination of the world around us and create a better form of knowledge production rather than pretending the importance of debate comes from something that will never actually happen. The benefits of debate have always reaped off of wealth, race, heteronormative gender elitism. It’s the reason why we always see the same teams at the top and why the rest of us have to work that much harder to get to the same place. I want you to ask yourself who the winners and losers actually are when debating a traditional policy round--whether or not a hypothetical plan “passing” actually equals success. Unless we begin to question larger structural implications of the debate space, debate will never really change.

I will still listen to your bs ptx DA so chillax

______

Position by Position Breakdown

K affs: Love them! I think that they should be related to the topic/debate space that is more than just one sentence or tag of a card. But I will listen to affs that aren’t. If you run a dope ass performance aff u da best <333

FW: Always being on the affirmative side of a FW debate I definitely lean aff, but it’s all in the flow. However, for me, this is an argument about the models of debate. Instead of hella “abuse” you should debate the competing interpretations and what that would look like in practice.

On that note, I think the best impact to go for on the FW flow is education. Fairness in debate is not attainable. If you go heavy on fairness make sure you talk about how it’s an internal link to education and I will buy it more. I think that “thinking like a policymaker” arguments are harmful and will be more inclined to vote for the aff if they contest that.

Don’t take advantage of arguments that you have not experienced ie: if you’re from a big debate school I don’t want to hear you say the word “small school.”

If your FW is why resolutional debate is better than K debate for education, you have to really go hard on this one because I do not believe this for a second. If you are winning the flow I will still vote you up, I just won’t like it.

SSD is good

FW v. K on the neg: Don’t appreciate these arguments. Force yourself to contest the method of the K instead of not engaging. Do your research. I’m getting really sick of policy teams not listening to what K teams are saying and bulldozing them with their non-contextualized FW blocks. The neg should have ground about being able to run Ks on the neg. Arguments along the lines of how the neg deserves to be heard are persuasive. I really dislike aff arguments that are like “neg must fiat a plan” and will be heavily persuaded by abuse arguments from the neg.

Ks:

I consider myself to have a decent amount of knowledge on K literature, but that does not mean that you don’t need to explain your K in depth. if you do not know what your K is I’m not going to be happy voting for you.

I like more material alternatives as opposed to more conceptual/theoretical. I want an explanation of the alternative that goes beyond what the tag says: what does voting for you does in the world of the alt? How does it absolve the impacts and links? Appreciate depth in the alt debate which will also help you on the perm.

Don’t let the aff get away with the perm

Don’t rely on jargon and you need to be able to explain your literature without it

Pls K proper or tell me how ur going to be organizing the K in your speeches by signposting

V. Policy Aff :

I think that the link level is extremely important and needs in-depth explanations of why that link is a bad thing (whether it is intrinsically bad or if it proves that the affirmative is less desirable than the status quo). I’m more inclined to case-specific links, but state bad links are fine if they are warranted out.

Depending on your strat, Ks don’t necessarily need an alternative but make sure you weigh if kicking it is worth it

V. K aff

I am heavily persuaded by arguments that go beyond the hypothetical nature of debate. Tell me why your K produces a better form of knowledge production which has better educational impacts which makes us better people in the real world. Arguments like this might be implied, but they definitely hold a lot of value.

Prove why your alternative is better than their advocacy ig lol

At the end of most K v. K debates it comes down to why your method solves better

Weighing the Ontology/Epistemology is <3

Case:

At heart, I think that your policy plan does absolutely nothing. I will vote on presumption very easily. But If the neg has little to no offense I will probably default aff

I think the art of case debate is definitely being lost (I am apart of that problem lmaoo). I enjoy the negative attacking the case more than a bs DA but yes to a combo of both. If the neg is winning a solvency deficit, I'll have a much harder time voting aff vs an off-case position.

CPs

I love PIC/Ks out of methods the most and I think they can be strategic. Word PICs are fine.

I will judge kick something if you tell me to in the debate, but otherwise, I don’t default

I will vote for your CP if it has a net benefit. If it doesn't solve the aff entirely, explain why the net benefit is more important and why the perm doesn't function.

I’m indifferent to CP theory

DAs

As a predominant K debater, I find DAs more appealing when there is a well explained and contextual link argument. Generic topic links as the main link story in the 2nr is not the move, unless ur winning that lol.

I really love critical DAs

If you’re reading a K, make sure to put some independent DAs on the flow as well

I’m a sucker for impact framing and love in-depth and contextualized impact calc

Turns case args are good but make sure you explain them otherwise they are a waste of time

Theory

Slow down or send out your long theory blocks

I am pretty neutral with condo and can be convinced it’s bad if there is abuse happening in the round. You should definitely have a limit in your interp with the number of conditional advocacies.

Feel free to read some stupid shit in front of me, idc

T

It’s whatever. This topics T arguments are good

5 mins on T in the 2nr please, but if not thats chill

Hello, I am a Roseville Area HS Senior with 4 years of debate experience and 2 on varsity. I definitely understand the stress of debating (I debated maverick for the majority of my first year), so feel free to reach out during round if you experience an anxiety attack or are particularly stressed.

Name: Sebastian Helgeson (you may call me "my dude" in round for fun if you want)

Pronouns: he/him

I have experience debating with very policy strategies and very kritikal strategies and will vote on either, however, I do have certain thresholds that need to be met in order to win a debate round.

FW/Framing/Role-of-the-Ballot

Especially if you are a novice, the use of impact framing and/or framework will guarantee you higher speaker points. I evaluate FW/Framing first in round and use it to make my decision. Even if you win the majority of the flows, a loss on FW/Framing is a lost round.

Kritiks

While I have experience with many kritikal arguments, I certainly do not have experience with all of them. As a rule of thumb, avoid unnecessary high-level vocab when describing a concept (especially if the only reason you are using those words is to flex on the opponents). I believe that clearly defined Kritik links, alts and impacts are required to win a Kritik and I will not vote on a Kritik unless all of these parts are extended and clearly explained in the 2nr. The link must be very clear for me to vote for a Kritik in round and I won't evalute links-of-omission unless well explained. Understandable arguments are key to clash and education in round.

Policy Args

I find policy arguments quite fun and enjoyable to watch. I will vote on these as long as the link story is extended and clearly explained in the 2nr. Pairing DAs with CPs is always fun and will make me happy.

Theory/T

I believe debate is a game and I will vote on whichever team out-techs the other on the theory flow. Tech > truth always, but this is especially important on the theory flow. Even if your aff is reasonably topical, I will vote negative on topicality if you don't defend your position well enough.

Practices in Round

I like debates that promote both education and clash but also fun, so I have the following rules in round.

1) Spreading is entirely fine as it allows more content to be discussed, BUT do not spread tags of cards and do not spread pre-written blocks like you would card text. I will listen closely, but if I don't hear your card tag or the entirety of your block, I will not factor it into my decision and will result in lower speaker points.

2) I find a lot of value in block writing, BUT I dislike speeches that rely entirely on pre-written blocks especially if it is unclear if you wrote them yourself. Please contextualize your blocks to the round and explain them in your own words in crossX if prompted. Also, do not spread through them as you would a card, that hurts education.

3) Respect is very important. Misgendering, and personal attacks both in-round and between speeches will result in lower speaker points. When a person is speaking, I want them to have complete respect. As for respect towards me, if I end up not voting for you, you should not argue against my decision in the RFD; your time for debating about who should win should have happened in the rebuttal speeches. I'd be happy to answer any confusions during my RFD, but do not attempt to change my mind after round.

4) Tag team crossX is allowed, but don't interrupt your partner unless absolutely necessary.

5) Tech is always more important than truth in a round, however, disrespectful arguments (like racism good, or poverty good) will not be weighed in round. Card quality will also be evaluated higher than card quantity.

If you want better speaker points, follow these suggestions

1) Give clear overviews, roadmaps, and signposts in your speeches

2) Number your arguments (especially analytics)

3) Do a direct line-by-line on the flow and emphasize clash

4) Evaluate evidence by referencing authors, evaluating warrants, noting dates, identifying hypertags, etc.

5) Arguing FW/Framing in your speech and how it relates to your arguments

6) Debate is a game, thus I will add to its fun. If you can correctly implement a reference to Avatar:TLA, Norman Borlaug, Alan Turing, or the Doll Test into your speech, you will recieve +.1 speaker points.

If you have any questions about rounds or my paradigm, feel free to email me at sebhelgeson@gmail.com.

Background and Contact Information

I debated policy for Rosemount High School from 2016 to 2020 and have been judging since 2020. My undergraduate studies were in economics and political science. For Lincoln-Douglas or Congressional debate, see respective sections at the bottom; all other sections (excluding this section and "Important Points for In-Person Tournaments") apply only to policy debate.

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 pre-round questions in the room. This is your chance to clarify my views, so please ask if there's any uncertainty (or if you just didn't get to carefully read my admittedly rather long paradigm).

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.

Judging Approach

I am a predominantly 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 heavily to what's said in the final rebuttals, including to frame the key questions and to determine which side 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/planless affirmative as a policy affirmative. I won't automatically vote on framework, don’t hold kritikal/planless affirmatives to an abnormally high standard, and don’t necessarily 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 which side wins that part of the debate. My voting record in rounds with kritikal affirmatives is pretty even.

– I enjoy judging policy v. policy, "clash of civilizations," and K v. K rounds about the same. I also enjoy judging rounds that come down to theory more than most judges probably do.

– If what I ran as a debater is important 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 am probably more willing to vote on topicality (against affirmatives with plans), 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 are 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 make if uncontested: (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 toward the end of the debate.

– 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 has the potential to make others in the room feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

– I understand Congress, legislative procedure, and Congressional politics better than most. I don't really think this should affect your inclination to run (or not run) a Congress-related position in front of me, but I'll let you make what you will of this.

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. Such judge instruction should be cohesive of all operative flows in the final rebuttals. I generally suggest including this in an overview in your final rebuttal.

– Comparatively analyzing warrants is the next-best way to increase your chances of winning. In reasonably close debates, my RFDs almost always eventually come down to which team better analyzed and explained their warrants on a key controversy that a key question hinges on.

– When reading kritikal arguments, you should explain your thesis and theory clearly. You should give me a clear understanding of your position for me to vote for it (otherwise I may think you simply haven't fulfilled the burden of proof), and you should not assume I have extensive knowledge of your theory or literature beyond or even from exposure from debate. I think debaters are expecting judges to fill in too many argumentative gaps, and I decline to do so. You should be sure to impact out important substantive controversies on the flow that you think get you a lot of mileage.

– Explaining the theory of the case is important for non-kritikal arguments too. Though the basic argument of a counterplan, disadvantage, or advantage is often more straightforward, failing to explain fundamentally how something works in plain terms lowers the bar for the other side's rejoinder and makes me hesitant to vote for it. I should understand your position(s), and the necessary depth of explanation varies directly with the complexity (and to some extent, my prior unfamiliarity) of the position(s).

– 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, which are the main starting points for my decision.

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. More broadly, if you're not reading the text of a card, I would advise against reading/speaking at top speed. I am unlikely to get as good a flow as you desire if your late constructives or rebuttals are almost exclusively read at top speed. I generally do not call “clear” or “slow” if I feel I am getting an inadequate flow of your speech, so you should 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 by part (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 referring to cross-applications).

General 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

– Demonstrating a deep (and correct) understanding of the legislative process in Congress

– Using math to support arguments

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 in your rebuttals, and I’ll evaluate it as applicable.

– 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 almost always seems to be 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 closely contested controversy in the final rebuttals over what a piece of evidence means. If you want me to read evidence, instruct me to in your final rebuttal and impact out your understanding of 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 (e.g. sense of scale, discrete versus continuous, contextualizating and inferencing from evidence) 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 at least include the claim and the warrants. If there's contestation on a point, evidence comparison, especially on the warrant level, can be useful. 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 do not generally give any 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 generally do not call “clear” or “slow” if I feel I am getting an inadequate flow of your speech, so you or your partner should watch me to make sure I’m following.

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 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.

Post-Round Feedback

After giving my reason for decision, I usually don't orally deliver much, if any, unprompted team-specific feedback. I type all my feedback into the online ballot, so I think it's more useful to give you more time to ask questions that are on your mind, and I am eager to take the time to answer and discuss. I'm also happy to email you your team-specific feedback before the end of the tournament—just let me know if so.

Important Points for In-Person Tournaments

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 if I have any.

Lincoln–Douglas

I have some experience debating and judging Lincoln–Douglas, but less than I have in policy. 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 both debaters want to be humored by me, I would be interested in having a round in which we call the sides "Lincoln" and "Douglas" instead of "affirmative" and "negative."

– 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.

Congress

You may want to be aware that I work in the U.S. Congress and my debate background is almost exclusively in policy. These two things come together to influence how I think about Congress as a debate event, but not necessarily in an obvious way. An oversimplification of what I "want" to see is (1) everyone (especially presiding officers) emulating Congressional procedure and decorum to a practicable extent that doesn't disrupt the substantive nature of the event and (2) non–presiding officers engaging in argumentation that is in-depth and responsive to arguments made previously.

Before I go any further, I also recognize that I have many uncommon, if not straight-up unpopular, opinions. As a member of a panel judging your round, I completely understand that there may be legitimate reasons to not overadapt to the outlier preferences of one judge. That said, I think at least some suggestions I offer below are unlikely to alienate other judges but are very likely to substantially boost my view of your performance.

Proecudure, Practice, and Decorum

I'm not seeking to completely undermine the activity that you all work hard to prepare for and compete in. But I think the chamber should operate more like Congress with respect to procedure, practice, and decorum when doing so is simple, does not disrupt the substantive nature of the event, and does not adversely alter the fundamental educational and competitive nature of the activity.

I specifically suggest that:

– The presiding officer

ahead of votes, clearly state what the question is (e.g. "the question is on the motion" or "the question is on passage of the bill")

announce votes by saying "on this vote, the yeas are x, the nays are y, the bill is (not) passed" or "...the motion is (not) agreed to"

A bill does not fail, and I think that is especially so if the motion to reconsider is not made and laid upon the table.

in announcing the end of a timed period, use the word "expired" instead of "concluded" or "elapsed" (e.g. "the questioning time has expired")

recognize questioners by title and name (e.g. "Senator [name]," not just "[name]")

do not "assume unanimous consent"—I don't know where this comes from and is just wrong

– Non–presiding officers

make the motion for the previous question by saying "I move the previous question" or "I move to order the previous question," NOT "I move to the previous question"

"Move" in this context means making a motion, not a change in position or state, so it should not be followed by "to" as a preposition. It would be more complete to say "I move to order the previous question," but it is common and accepted practice to omit "to order." But omitting only "order" doesn't make sense since it splits the infinitive in a way that misleadingly changes the apparent definition of "move" and completely changes the word that "to" relates to from "order" to "the previous question." Similarly, it would be incorrect for a presiding officer to say "we will now move to the previous question." I suggest the presiding officer respond to the motion as follows: "Is there a second? ... There is. The question is on the motion," then do the vote on the motion.

avoid language that doesn't make sense in a congressional context such as "I urge you to pass/negate"; rather, "I urge my colleagues to votes yes/no" is preferable

refer to legislators in the third person/by name, not "you"

Concision

I think there are a lot of superfluous words spoken out of adherence to custom without any substantive or procedural purpose. I suggest you all refrain from saying needless words, including things like:

– "I thank the Chair"

– "the Chair thanks you"

– announcements of speech time

– "seeing as that was a speech in the affirmative"

– "we are now open to 4 blocks of questioning"

– "we are now in line for a speech in the opposition"

– "legislative session" (there's no executive session, so "legislative" is unnecessary)

– "congratulations to the author" and whatever the corresponding phrase would be if the bill does not pass

Generally, if the round can go on without you saying it, don't say it. At the varsity level, I think presiding officers should be able to assume that everyone in the round knows the format of the round and need not explain what is happening at every stage of the round.

If the presiding officer insists on thanking speakers, the presiding officer should probably be saying "the Chair thanks Senator [name]."

If speakers insist on thanking the chair, that should probably come at the very top of your speech, e.g. "Thank you Mr./Madam President. This bill ..."

Other procedural thoughts

I think if the tournament rules, the NSDA High School Unified Manual, and the NSDA Congressional Debate Guide, are silent on a matter (of which there are many), I think the chamber should turn to seeking to emulate the procedures of the respective chamber in the U.S. Congress (either the Senate or the House of Representatives, depending on which chamber we're sitting as) to a practicable extent.

For example, I think if we're sitting as the Senate, I think senators can and should speed things up (even if slightly so) by asking for unanimous consent. This may likely be the case on motions for the previous question, motions to recess, and the motion to adjourn.

I think the usefullness of less common motions—such as motions to rescind, reconsider, suspend the rules, and others—is more frequent than the customary usage suggests. I would be impressed by someone making such a motion correctly and productively.

Evaluating the presiding officer

In evaluating the presiding officer, I value fairness in recognition, procedural accuracy and clarity, fluidity, concision, and impartiality. Note that this is distinct from "fast, fair, and efficient."

Fairness is the probably the most important thing, but I do not have the multitasking ability to carefully follow precedence/recency and simultaneously fulfill my other judging obligations. If I notice the presiding officer screwing up recognition, the mistake(s) would likely have to be egregious.

Absent glaring fairness issues, procedural accuracy is what I care about the most. This relates to proper execution of parliamentary procedure. For example, I've seen presiding officers make unilateral decisions that I don't think they have the power to do or skip over votes just because everyone appeared to second a motion. These and other common practices are egregious mistakes in my view and may be penalized harshly. Presiding officers should not make up procedure for convenience or alignment with incorrect common practice and should pay close attention to making sure motions are properly made and decided on. Procedural clarity refers to making clear what the presiding officer is doing procedurally, such as making clear what a vote is on,

I value fluidity but not necessarily speed. I think taking a bit of time to let evreryone process what's happening in the chamber is useful. Slowing down recognition during questioning also would be appreciated. Honestly, the more you seem like an (acting) President pro tempore or Speaker (pro tempore)—or at least one whom knows what they're doing—the more highly I will view your performance.

Concision: see above.

I think the presiding officer's role is to facilitate debate, not to push debate forward. Turning to congressional practice, if nobody seeks recognition, I think the presiding officer can and should just sit silently. Nobody wanting to speak is a problem for the legislators for whom making speeches and motions is how they get judged, not for the presiding officer. I think the presiding officer's tone and non-verbal body language should be fairly unchanging.

That said, I think the presiding officer should make appropriate reminders to the chamber as necessary.

I won't penalize presiding officers for ignoring my thoughts here, but I find a lot of presiding officer practices to be too aggressive. I honestly don't really understand why a loud a commanding voice seems to be the norm for presiding officers. The NSDA guide, for example, suggests a "calm, controlled and caring voice." I concur. While in the House, Speakers pro tempore tend to be louder, that's in the context of having 435 members in a large, loud, and rowdy chamber. In the Senate, with only 100 senators and a smaller chamber, the President pro tempore usually speaks rather softly. Though we may not have the luxury of microphones, there are other differences too that I think suggest a calmer tone is appropriate: we have far fewer legislators, we are in a far smaller room, and there is an expectation of silence among those not recognized.

Similarly, I think customary gaveling is often way louder and more frequent than it needs to be, sometimes to the point of it being distracting. But if you are confident that it's important for the speaker, I won't penalize you for loud and frequent gaveling (within reason). I would also be perfectly content if you didn't use the handle to point at people.

If I rank a presiding officer first, they likely would have executed the basic functions of the presiding officer with fluidity, eliminated unnecessary phrases customarily used, and followed at least some of my suggestions in the Procedure, Practice, and Decorum subsection above. Unless all the other contestants were really bad, I am unlikely to rank a presiding officer highly if they do not at least try to adapt a few things for me that other judges are unlikely to care about.

Do not ask me to rank you. Doing so may be grounds for me to assign you the lowest rank possible. I know how to nominally do my job and thingsa ballot on Tabroom.

Substantive things for non–presiding officers

I view the event of Congressional debate as more of a debate event and less of an exercise in emulating politicians, whether in substance or style. That said, nailing down things like procedure and the language of legislating are pluses in my book.

In evaluating non–presiding officers, I value smart argumentation (including on-the-spot analysis and synthesis), strong refutation, argumentative leadership, argumentative originality, well-researched angles, and extemporaenous delivery—roughly in that order.

I value depth over breadth, possibly more than most judges do. Three minutes is very short, especially at the speaking speed of this event. I frequently find myself commenting that I think focusing on two key points, if not one key point, would be beneficial. Similarly, it annoys me when key points are discrete and there's no attempt at relating them together to support the broader conclusion.

In policy, every speech after the first is expected to respond to the other side's arguments. Meanwhile, I think it's a missed opportunity that most congressional floor speeches are pre-written with little reference to or refutation of contrary arguments. These two things influence me to expect refutation earlier than most judges do. Even in the first speech in opposition, I would appreciate at least reference to the opposing side's arguments. By the second speech on each side, I'm hoping for refutation. By the third speech and beyond on each side, I expect substantial refutation.

I strongly believe that amendments are vastly underutilized. I think part of being a strong legislator is not just shooting down imperfect ideas but improving bills to make them more likely to pass and more likely to succeed in their efforts. If you submit and offer a strong amendment, defend it well, and integrate that all into your arguments, I would be very impressed and inclined to rank you first. Yes, the presiding officer can rule an amendment is not germane, but anyone can appeal the ruling of the Chair too.

I'll score and rank based on the arguments you make facially and on whether you made the arguments I thought are strongest, but I do think there's a lack of technical attention in this event. I really appreciate more technical, less policy-based, points, such as sloppy drafting of a bill, an inappropriate agency or inappropriate agency action, conflation of authorization and appropriation, likely unconstitutionality, issues with conflicting laws being declared null and void, issues with effective dates, imprecise language (both in definitions and elsewhere), improper drafting style (within the bounds of the structure of Congressional debate bills), and enacting clauses not adherent to 1 U.S. Code § 101–105.

If you put the last two paragraphs together, yes, I am suggesting that I would appreciate a perfecting amendment with respect to the enacting or resolving clause.

Along similar lines, I have a really hard time understanding why some defensive arguments in opposition are reasons to vote no on the bill. I think the fundamental role of speakers in opposition should lead others to the conclusion that they should voting nayon a bill. Some defensive arguments alone are enough to get there, and some are not, so I think you should not lose sight of that.

So long as your arguments prove why legislators should vote yea or nay, I think an offense–defense paradigm is not particularly suited to this event. I think the fact that I, as a judge, am not making a determination as to whether I should vote yea or nay on a bill based on the points argued before me means that you don't necessarily need to "win" an argument from a rather black-and-white perspective. I would rather you make smart, nuanced arguments than overly simplistic arguments that defeat contrary arguments on paper.

Since I don't get to read your evidence, if you're disputing someone else's evidence-based claims of fact with your own, you need to do some additional comparative work, such as giving me information about both of your evidence when possible and telling me why yours is preferable along a certain dimension (e.g. "their evidence is from an industry-funded website with no peer review, whereas my evidence is preferable because it comes from authors with no conflicts of interest writing in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal").

Much more often than not, I find that time spent on introductions would be better spent on better developing your key points.

Delivery matters to me more in Congress than it would in policy or Lincoln–Douglas debate, but it's nowhere near the most important thing I look for. I think it mainly affects the ethos of your speeches. Delivery is more or less a tie-breaker for me, though there are often a lot of good speakers who are roughly tied in my mind. The most frequent delivery suggestion I make is to vary your elements of delivery, e.g. tone, volume, and pacing.

I would prefer that your speech sound more natural. I don't love it when speeches remind me of the speech event of extemporaneous speaking, though I won't penalize you for this.

Structurally, I don't need you to give a "roadmap" of what your key points are or say when you're moving from one argument to the next. Also, you can better spend your time by making your argument without telling me you're going to make an argument. That all should be clear in such a speech that's only three minutes long and not delivered at a high speed.

If I had a nickel for each time I got confused by someone saying "everything said on the other side flows our way," I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. I now suspect that "flow [a certain direction]" means something different in Congress than it does in policy. If the bill is to increase Social Security benefits and the opposition speakers talk about how it would quickly bankrupt Social Security, and a supportive speaker says "everything they said flows aff," I would then expect an explanation of why bankrupting Social Security is a reason to support the bill. I assume that's not how you all intend to use the term. I would suggest rewording that slightly to avoid overpromising and inevitably underdelivering in my eyes.

This isn't as important for me as I suspect it may be for other judges, but it would be preferable that you vary which side you're speaking on and when in the round you're speaking as much as possible.

The most sensible interpretation of what a "resolution" is given the NSDA rules is that they are simple resolutions of the Senate or the House as opposed to joint resolutions or concurrent resolutions. This procedural nugget might be of substantive utility on some resolutions.

Most frequent critical comments I give (roughly in order)

– Your argument that the bill doesn't accomplish its goals would be bolstered by submitting and offering an amendment to improve its effectiveness

– This speech would've been better served by developing one main point instead of two

– This speech would've been better served by developing two main points instead of three

– Delivery was strong but would be better with greater variance, e.g. with respect to tone, volume, and/or pace

– You would benefit from a clearer thesis and/or clearer topic sentences

– I didn't understand your argument

– You need to warrant out your claim, especially because it's critical to your argument and it's not obvious why

– You should weigh impacts more

– Your angle, while good, was too unoriginal for how late we are in the round

– For how late we are in the round, you should be doing more refutation

– For how late we are in the round, you should be doing more analysis that frames the whole round

– You spent too much time on developing an argument (often establishing the problem) that the other side is not contesting and is unlikey to

– You erroneously said "I move to the previous question"

– Stop saying superfluous words, especially thanking the Chair or speakers

Miscellaneous notes

I'm sorry, but I struggle to follow the questioning period: there's not enough time in each period, there's not enough transition time between each period, everyone's interrupting each other, and I'm insufficiently tracking who's asking questions. If I have any advice for you, it would be to talk slower, tone it down, and keep it simple.

All else equal, I really don't care if you hold your computer or your paper.

I don't really care about "cycles" or "breaking cycle" (and frankly I do not know what those terms mean). It's not like (1) you all are trying to convince me to vote a certain way on the bill and (2) I can't make such a decision fairly if I heard a few more speeches on one side than the other.

Finally, I encourage you to take the activity seriously but not to take yourself too seriously. I often see humorous moments of levity in the U.S. Senate and House, and I think you all can have some of that too while also being seriously engaged in this activity. Doing an extracurricular activity should be at least somewhat fun, and it's okay to show that.

I recommend you read the Important Points for In-Person Tournaments section above.

pronouns: he/they

Feel free to email with questions, and add me to the chain - ajacksondebate@gmail.com

I'm Niko. I'm an undergraduate philosophy student at the University of Minnesota, and I debated for Rosemount High School 2017-2021. I have not debated and barely judged since I graduated, so keep in mind that I'm not familiar with the topic.

Important speed preference: I will do my best to keep up with you, but I am only a human who has not flowed spreading regularly since early 2021. I am so much more likely to catch your arguments if you slow down significantly, especially if what you're saying is critical to the round. If it's not on my flow and I don't remember hearing it, I will not evaluate it, even if you actually said it. You could be the clearest spreader in the whole world, but if you're too fast, I may not be able to hear you well.

When sending the speech doc: If you delete your prewritten analytics, then spread through them faster than I as the judge can understand, I will not think highly of your behavior on this front. What you're saying should be accessible to your opponent and your judge. I don't see a good reason for deleting pre-written analytics at all, to be honest, since the goal for both teams is substantive engagement. (That said, I won't flow from your speech doc personally.)

Important K preference: I try my best to be as open to kritiks as possible. I mostly ran Ks in high school. However, I simply am not intimately familiar with nearly any critical theory. I mean it: explain to me like I have never heard ANY of the terminology you're using. I will not do any work for you in explaining your K, mostly because I'm genuinely incapable of doing that work at all without significant research.

Additionally, our positions in relationship to systems of oppression are often very relevant in debate rounds, and I try to balance an awareness of this with my role as a judge, which is to evaluate the arguments presented in an unbiased manner. The content of your argument will never preclude me from voting for you, but the execution will, no matter how much I personally tend to agree with what you're saying.

Theory: I will vote on anything you explicitly tell me to vote for, unless I genuinely find it morally abhorrent. I do not find overly technical or contrived theory arguments morally abhorrent. Be organized and go nuts.

online debate updates: send your blocks and be patient with your fellow debaters. Connectivity issues are expected.

Top:

Put me on the chain: kleckner.isabel [at] gmail.com

STOP BEING AGGRESSIVE IN ROUND ITS NOT THAT DEEP

I think that sending your blocks makes debate better and making a separate send doc is a waste of your time- your blocks aren't as special as you think they are, the part you win on is debating them well. That being said, I flow on paper and am not going to read things that were unintelligible.

I flow. If you make an argument I will evaluate it based on how it was made. I will not evaluate arguments you did not make.

If you are being actively racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/transphobic/xenophobic I am fully prepared to give you the L and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. I do not enjoy judge intervention, but draw the line when you make your fellow competitors feel unsafe.

Background/Personal preferences

On one hand, I've judged a lot of middle school debate so I am easily impressed. On the other hand, coaching 6th graders has given me zero tolerance for nonsense at your big age of Not Eleven.

Competing: 3 yrs varsity for Mpls Washburn, 1 yr with Mpls South. This means I generally understand the arguments. That does not mean I'm willing to do a lot of work for you.

Coaching: 3 years coaching middle school, 1 year coaching highschool, various work at camps and tournaments.

You don't need to refer to me. If you do, it's they/them.

Speed is only good if everyone can understand what you're saying. I'm not gonna say Clear because that's annoying for everyone, but if nobody can understand you you're only hurting yourself. If your only neg strategy is to outspread your opponent, you should probably get better at debate.

Round evaluation

Kritik

Ks v FW I go either way so do what you want*/do best. I'd like to consider myself a K debater, but have definitely been on both sides of this equation.

I understand most literature bases. If I don't, it is on me to do preliminary readings during prep, not on you to explain the entire thesis of the theory to me. While I do expect you to fully explain your arguments, don't be concerned that any lack of personal understanding on my end would prevent you from running what you're comfortable with.

I am a strong proponent of "nothing about us without us." This isn't an instant ballot, just please interrogate why you feel the need to read theories about identities you do not have, and be prepared to explain what it contributes to the activity. I am open to the idea that there are exceptions.

Ks on the aff

Absolutely go for it.

Debates where the negative reads an actual position that isn't FW are probably my favorite version of the activity.

That being said, it is very possible to lose on FW in front of me- your aff still needs to have an impact it can solve for.

Impact debate

I do believe in real-world impacts from debate- it can be a game but y'all spend too much time in it to think it hasn't also shaped your subjectivity. THIS MEANS DON'T SAY PROBLEMATIC STUFF ("death good" & other args that can cause harm to people are not acceptable)

Do the warranted impact calc ("it's good/bad" is not an impact and you will not win)

Evidence

Good evidence is good but I will not read it unless you tell me to.

I believe that rehighlighting is an underutilized tool. I also believe that somebody said that and y'all thought it meant "rehighlight one random card every round to check off the box." It is only useful on; A: cards that matter for a main argument, and B: cards that actually flow your way. One line where the author presents an opposing argument and later concludes against it is not useful for anyone.

If possible, send your files as word documents. PDFs, google docs, and body of the email all make it harder for the other team to process. However, I understand the limitations of publci school Chromebooks, so do what you need to do.

Topicality

Full disclosure, I was once given a 25 on the local circuit for ""disrespecting T,"" so unless the aff actually isn't topical this is probably not the best move in front of me.

There Are good topicality arguments. "I don't know how to debate a K" is not one of them.

Miscellaneous

"Meme rounds": I do fundamentally believe we are here to learn. If you and the other team collectively decide you would not like to do that, we can figure it out, but please reconsider your relationship to this activity.

Perfcon is probably real, especially if one of those positions is a K. Again, open to the idea of (WELL-EXPLAINED) exceptions.

"small schools" args: I debated for two Actually small schools. I believe there definitely are a lot of structural inequities between big debate schools and smaller schools. It is usually not a meaningful argument in the debate.

Condo: I won’t enjoy judging a condo debate because there are way more interesting and persuasive arguments but I don’t necessarily lean in any direction.

Yes, put me on the email chain - koperski.debate@gmail.com

Please refer to me as my name and not as "judge" in round.

University of Iowa 2025
Farmington High school 2021

Top level

1. Clarity over speed - this is even more important in the era of online debating, and you should always send your analytics in speech docs

2. When debating case, the first thing I look to is solvency. If I conclude that your aff doesn't do what you say it does, then I have no reason to vote for the affirmative. If solvency becomes a core issue in the debate, I will always go and read the aff's cards.

3. The neg needs to explain what their advocacy on the Kritik or Counterplan does for me to weigh it, it really boils down to "If I don't know what it is, I won't weigh it"

4. I am a good judge to go for Topicality or Theory in front of so long as you can explain things sufficiently and really impact it out - for novices, "Packet checks T" is not an argument

5. Cx is a speech, so use it well to attack your opponents while propping yourself up - tag team is fine so long as its not your partner taking up the whole cross period when you are supposed to be asking the questions

6. Do not read objectively bad procedurals in round, this means stuff like arguing USFG is faceters guild or bad links in the citations when you forgot to remove a period at the end (it shows that you don't care for debating, but rather you just want to waste your opponents time). I find these arguments to be detrimental to debate as an activity because it distracts from critical thinking and good argumentation, to being caught up in semantics that really don't matter. However, if the procedurals are based in good faith I am more sympathetic to voting on it. If your procedurals are in bad faith, I will dock speaks for it, I have no tolerance for it anymore.

7. I do not judge kick unless instructed to, if the other team argues that I should not judge kick after instructed to, then they should explain in detail the reasons why judge kicking is bad. If judge kick bad is argued, I am very sympathetic to agreeing that it's bad and end up not judge kicking the position. You read it, and now you must stick with it.

8. Tech > Truth - However, both are important in a debate round, and I can be swayed to evaluate Truth>Tech if you warrant out why viewing the round this way is inherently better

9. If you have to ask if there are any theoretical reasons to reject the team, one of two things is true, either you weren't paying attention, or the other team isn't giving enough importance to them. Reasons to reject the team should be at the forefront of the debate if you actually want me to reject the team on something.

10. My general philosophy on evidence is that you should read less evidence that is of higher quality rather than reading more evidence. Debate is a game of arguments, not one of speed. I am also very sympathetic to teams that rehighlight the other teams evidence because I believe that it's the evidence that should be making the arguments in a debate, and if the evidence you choose to read contradicts itself (even if it's part of the same source that you do not read), then you shouldn't be reading that card, and the teams that point this out and argue it well, will see an increase in speaker points and an easier path to the ballot.

Ethics Violations

I, as a judge will not intervene on something that can be considered an ethics violation without the opposing team raising the issue in round as well as clearly stating that they are making an ethics challenge. If/When that occurs, the round will stop, and I will assess the alleged violation. If I find that a violation has occurred, the challengers will win the round, and the team that committed the ethics violation will receive at most 25 speaker points. In the event that I find that no ethics violation has occurred, the challengers will lose the round and receive at most 25 speaker points.

Specifics to off case positions

Theory - I believe that theory is under utilized in debate, a theory debate should end up being about in round harms and methods and models of debate. I enjoy a good theory debate, this does not mean you should read theory in front of me, especially if you don't know how to impact it out. I typically lean aff on condo and disclosure theory, but will easily vote neg on condo if they argue arbitrariness of interps well. I do believe that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but, there are a few exceptions to this, especially if the other team does not make the argument that it's not a reason to reject the team.

K - Going for the K can be a bit of a daunting task, however if you can use the affs evidence to point out a link and can explain how the alt functions and solves then you will be in a pretty good position. The aff should always perm the K. I'm familiar with most kritiks that you'll probably run, but it's always a good idea to explain things especially if you are running a more obscure or high theory K. I also find that a lot of K teams get trapped in an echo chamber of their alt and assume that they don't need to explain the alt on a more general level. Being able to clearly explain your alt in a way that everyone can understand will greatly increase your chances of winning the alt debate (assume you're explaining it to someone who has never done debate). Yes your Baudrillard

T - Topicality comes down to competing interpretations and methods of debate, your aff simply being topical isn't enough to win on T, you need to prove why the resolution should include your aff. As stated above, "Novice packet checks T" is not an argument and I won't consider it, instead, as the aff, you should challenge T head on instead of trying to skirt the question of Topicality. I believe that a more limited topic is always better than a broad topic, it allows for more depth and conversation about the topic, and it encourages innovation and better research for both the aff and the neg instead of finding some obscure topic that's impossible to research. I also do not believe that "plan text in a vacuum" is a good "We meet" argument, it encourages bad and vague plan writing. A good limits argument should include a case list with explanation on why what their topic includes that yours doesn't is bad.

CP - Every CP needs to have a net benefit for me to weigh it. You need to have warranted analysis on the net benefit and how the CP solves. Solvency deficits, when argued well can easily take down a CP. As the aff, you always need to perm the CP and extend the perm throughout the whole debate, If there is no perm on the CP you need to win a large solvency deficit.

DA - Weigh the impacts of the DA to the impacts of the aff, I personally like link debates and find them to be the best way to challenge or defend a DA, that being said, this does not absolve you from doing impact work, if the link isn't clearly contested the impact is the next thing I look at, so focus more on the impacts, because if the DA doesn't link, the impacts of the DA are moot.

Case - See top level point 2 for aff stuff. For the neg, impact turn everything, if they say "x" is good, then say "x" is bad, if you have the cards for it, then I will listen (unless it's so untrue that it becomes harmful). I will listen to even the most absurd impact turns and vote on them, but only if you can actually convince me that they are true.

K affs - I am not the best judge to read these in front of, that being said, I have ran K affs before. My general philosophy is that in order to win while running a K aff, you must do the following

1. Prove why the K aff is better than following the resolution (unless you are reading a topical K aff, in which case, you'll just need to explain what makes it topical if it's not obvious)

2. Win on FW and on how your model of debate is better, the easier it is to understand your framework and the model of debate it proposes, the more likely you are to win it in front of me.

3. Do enough work on the impact/advocacy level to prove that not only is the impact/advocacy necessary, but also why we should first focus on that and not the general impact scenarios in typical debates.

4. Avoid relying on K and FW tricks to win, I greatly dislike them and I find them to ruin the spirit of debate. Debate is and should continue to be focused on education, by relying on tricks, it takes away from this education and skills building.

5. On Framework, SLOW DOWN, I'd rather you make less arguments that are smart and well thought out, than make a lot of arguments just to fill the flow. Also, if you are reading pre-made arguments, send them out, going fast and not sending what you read is super problematic and I find that a ton of teams do this as a way to win, and I find this practice to be detrimental and contributes to exclusionary practices in debate.

My views on debate

1. I believe that debate is a competitive game that can have some real world implications through rhetoric and discussions of how different forms of knowledge and power shape someone's lived experiences

2. This is a reading and research activity - attack your opponents warrants and author qualifications but if you are going to do this, make it clear why I should reject that piece of evidence. If you are going to run a Kritik in front of me, the best way to win the link debate is to use the aff's 1AC evidence to prove a link.

3. I have no tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Homophobia etc. in debate. This is an educational safe space and everyone should be treated with the upmost respect. If I find that you are making the space unsafe or problematic, I will dock speaker points, and if it's bad enough, I will drop the team. I find that the debate space can be very problematic at times and that it drives people out of the activity, and I want to ensure that this does not continue.

4. Actively debating is a performance and you are the performer, the time is yours when you speak and you may use that time however you want, but you should have a justification as to why you do the things you do.

5. At the end of the day, debate should always be something you do for fun. Debate can be tiring for everyone, so maintaining civility in the debate should always be the top priority. You don't know what your opponents have been through, or how they feel about debate, and I would hate if you contributed to why people leave this activity.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are mostly based off of the vibes in round. Everyone starts at a 28.5, debating well and being nice will increase your speaks, conversely, poor debating and being mean/hostile will lower your speaks. If you get below a 27, that means you either made a massive round ending mistake that should have been easy to spot, or you said something objectionable. If you get a 25, that means you either lost on an ethics violation, repeatedly said something in round that was objectionable and unethical, or said something about your opponents or myself that is beyond any doubt meant to demean, dehumanize, ostracize, or cause mental anguish.

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

I also don't tend to vote on T

I have been the head coach of Roseville Area High School for 13 years. I have coached kids in LD and Policy with a much stronger background in Policy. I feel fairly qualified to hear most of your arguments but I am not a PHD candidate in post-modern philosophy so please provide clarity especially around K literature. Here are some tendencies:

Debate is...

Debate is a role-playing game loosely based on reality. I will buy many arguments if there is enough factual evidence to support it in cards. It is not my job as a judge to assert realism claims in the round unless your argument is absurd. Where is the line for this? I dunno. I'd vote for a lot of stuff if you back it up well.

Util/Ethics

I believe in arguments based on ethical obligation over a strict util framework but I can be convinced either way based on solid impact calculus.

Framework

I have limits and framework arguments that force me into too tiny a box just might be ignored. Your topicality arguments, for example, ought to demonstrate some form of in-round abuse in order for me to buy that I need to vote on it.

Policy

I will vote on politics debates(especially in the Trump era) and I follow politics fairly closely.

Kritics

-I will vote on Ks and in fact I work with a K heavy team but make sure that the Kritic links to the debate in a meaningful way and that the alternative is read so that I can follow it.

Performative things

I am fine with speed.

Also, why are we still asking judges if they are OK with tag team cross-x?

If you run performative work be prepared to give me a standard to judge your debate and your performance. I do not prefer wading into standard debate vs. performance without a standard. You won't like my decisions and I won't like being forced to establish a

I'd like to judge your round and I think you will find I am a competent judge.

LD

If you have further questions feel free to email me at gregg.martinson@gmail.com

bmorgan.debate@gmail.com

my pronouns are she/her

my experience is in policy, if I'm judging you in a different category, please have patience

run whatever seems best to you, i won't automatically vote down any position (and i assume you have the decency to keep things respectful - if what you're reading are arguing is harmful, that takes precedent over any debate arguments)

i prefer you don't spread analytics in front of me, even if they're on the doc.

most (not all) of the notes below are for the neg, i will vote for pretty much any aff that can prove they solve a problem that they have also proven is more important than that of the neg. i also like creativity, and am certainly not opposed to voting for a K-aff, policy gets stale sometimes anyways.

K's

you have to explain each part of your K flow for me to consider it voteable. if your alt solvency is talking about revolution, and your alt is a mental rejection, you would need to explain how those fit together.

affs who focus entirely on the link side of a K debate are generally not on top of things, obviously it can work, but its much more convincing if you can meet the K at a critical level instead of avoiding its content with a 10 foot pole. debate the whole K.

CP's

Your CP needs an explicit net benefit and generics such as states or actor cps are hard to do right and generally not very convincing. if your main net benefit is a solvency deficit you need to do as much work on harms as the aff did in the 1AC.

if you make me laugh, you instantly get at least a minimum of 28 speaker points.

Info: I am a varsity-level policy debater at Rosemount High School. I would list my accomplishments, but there are too many. I can follow spreading fairly well but please slow down on tags and authors. If you are not clear I won't tell you but it will affect speaker points and my comprehension of your speech. I am also very Tech over Truth and I will vote on how well impacts are explained rather than the probability unless you convince me otherwise. Please include me on the email chain, pandari.debate@gmail.com. I do not take prep for flashing unless you steal prep or take over 2 minutes. Lastly, time your own speeches. It benefits everyone and helps the debate run smoother.

Affirmatives: I prefer more traditional policy aff's but I am fine with some soft-left ones (meme affs are fine too). I will evaluate K-Affs, but I give the neg more leeway on framework. Please explain the story of the aff well, if I can't understand the impacts I won't vote on them. I generally like more policy impacts but I will vote on structural violence impacts.

Disadvantages: I am fine with any disads but more specific ones will carry more weight in terms of the link debate. I like big-stick impacts, but, like with affs, I will prefer other impacts if you tell me to.

Kritks: I am not very well versed in most kritiks so explain the kritik with the assumption I haven't heard it before. Also, explain the link and impact well if you expect me to vote on it. I don't think you need an alt for a k to be functional, but it will carry less weight.

Counter Plans: I am a big fan of counter plans. They are my bread and butter. The jelly to my sauce. The quinoa to my keto diet. The sole reason for me to live. But make sure it's competitive with the aff. I love a good theory debate on CPs and can be convinced of almost anything, just keep the flow clean.

Topicality/Framework/Theory: I am a fan of topicality and believe it is heavily underutilized. I defer to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. As long as the violation is explained and extended well, I will judge the T debate on tech. On Framework, I sympathize with the neg and am heavily swayed by in-round abuse against K-Affs, but this doesn't mean I won't vote for K-Affs. Just make sure to explain your impacts and contextualize them to the debate space. For theory debates, I can be convinced of almost anything. A comparison of theory interpretations goes a long way. As always, be sure to explain your impacts well.

Cross-X: I don't flow Cross-X like some other judges, but I still think it's important and will take into account CX arguments that are brought up in speeches. Speaking of which, please do use your Cross-X arguments in your speeches. Also, be assertive but still be polite especially to your partner. Don't talk over your partner too much unless they need your help.

BTW: If you include a dank meme in your 1AC/1NC speech I will give you a virtual high-five after the round (Rubik's cube memes are x2). I am also a great proponent of swearing in speeches, just keep it non-offensive and polite.

Stay Saucy, Debate Well

For policy: if you speed read, please send me the email chain at liviareeves7@gmail.com

Email: rudd.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

~tldr is in bold~

.

Novice Debate:
Before you ask, yes. I'm okay with tag-team CX. I do also believe that it's important for each person to be involved in answering and asking questions, though, so please have your partner direct you to answer a question during their CX and don't interrupt CX to ask your own question unless it's crucial. If you think it's 'crucial', I must see it in later speeches for me to not dock points.

I am comfortable with any speed that you all will be able to go at, but I believe very heavily in clarity over speed. Don't scream, blur words together, or whisper. Also, do not spread tags or analytics. I will dock your points.

Be polite, kind, and unproblematic. Please do not yell over your partner or opponents. There is a difference between being assertive and aggressive. If you cross that line, I will give you a quick warning. Don't take it negatively, because sometimes accidents happen, but if you don't fix it, your speaks will suffer. If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, or discriminatory in any other way, I will vote you down. If your argument is any of those and the other team calls you out on it, proceeding to extend the argument/respond to their call out in a negative way will result in me voting you down. I won't reject the team if it seems that you truly didn't mean to be problematic, but I will reject the arg.

If you're feeling unsafe in a round or think that continuing to debate will be harmful for you, shoot me an email. I'll stop the round, no questions asked, and we can go from there.

I will vote tech>truth. I will do my best to intervene as little as possible. Unfortunately, that is often difficult for judges at the novice level. If you disagree with my decision, don't argue with me. It will just piss me off and I won't change my decision, nor is there a purpose to getting me to 'see that my decision was wrong'. You are encouraged to non-maliciously question me about my decision, just don't make it an interrogation. I am a firm believer in judge adaptation and if you lost, that's on you. Recognize that you were either not clear enough in your explanations or didn't do enough judge instruction in the 2R. See it from my perspective.

Within the novice packet, I have no argumentative biases against anything you might run, but I wrote out my view on each below. Run what you're best at and go for whatever makes sense in round.

Topicality - I fully believe in the educational value of topicality at the novice level and will vote on it, even with only one aff, as if the aff was being run outside of a packet. That being said, the one aff you have to run it against is probably topical, and I don't recommend going for T unless the other team drops it or seriously mishandles it.

CPs - My bread and butter. I love them. A good CP debate will make me happy.

DAs - Your DAs are probably shitty, but that's okay. Tech>truth, always, but if the other team calls you out on it, be prepared to defend your ev and link chains. I do love DAs, though, so go for it.

K - These are fun when done right. A good K debate will make me happy, but a bad K debate will make me cry. Don't just use your buzzwords to get around answering arguments, don't spread through prewritten overviews, and do line-by-line debate. If the other team 'misunderstands your argument', please make sure that you explain it so they don't continue to do so and, more importantly, I don't misunderstand it as well. Use the affirmative's evidence to get links. You'll win rounds off of that.

Case - A good case debate will win you the round. Case turns are A+. If you're aff, answer them. There is no situation where you don't have to. A nuanced case debate will make me very happy.

.

JV/Varsity Debate:

Most of the above applies. Don't be a Douche. I'll answer more specific questions before round - I need to write this.

Basics:

- Debated at Rosemount High School for 4 years

- Debated at UMN for 1 year

- Topic Knowledge Low

Email: RosemountPSDebate@gmail.com

Include me on the chain and feel free to contact with questions

Four year Policy debater for Rosemount

If Novii:

Just do what you would do for any other judge

Speed is fine but be clear

Yes you can do tag team CX

If JV:

Will vote on anything that's not Racism good, kill everyone, ect.

Framing is how you tell me to evaluate the round, make sure you use it.

tech>truth

DA: Favorite debate argument. Stupid is good, but I need a real reason why you win. If it has no substance I won't vote for it. Chances are the DA won't happen, but you just gotta convince me that it will.

CP: Do whatever, cheaty CPs are fine but be prepared to defend them. I will vote on Neg gets no Conditional advocacy's or Neg gets 8, all depends on your arguments. I actually like theory debates so long as you clash and give clear line by lines.

K: I don't run them often but I understand them well. Don't expect big words to help you, if you can't explain your terms, I probably won't vote for you. I will vote for a K even without an alt if you can prove the Aff is net worse than the squo.

K Aff: Ill vote for them but you need a really good reason as to why. I'm going to go into the round with some unconscious neg bias so probably not the best thing to run.

Case: Specific on case arguments tend to be underutilized, but can often be the most damning. If you can make their case really weak and/or turn it, it will be alot easier to vote for neg arguments.

Extra:

Give your offcase names, it makes organization so much easier. It doesn't even have to give away much if you are really that intent on keeping it a secret. If you just leave it numbered there is a higher chance your args won't get flowed correctly which is never good.

Make sure to have clear transitions, my hearing isn't the best so if things get mushed together I might not catch them.

If you are able to include Reese’s/ Reese’s Puffs in your speech in a way that makes sense, I will give +0.1 speaks (no they dont stack)

Hello, I'm Jamie Snoddy (pronounced like snotty, but with the [d] sound). I'm a community coach for Patrick Henry HS and also a coach at the University of Minnesota. I did a year of debate at Patrick Henry and debated two years for UMN. I graduated in 2018 with a Bach. in Linguistics (Puns get you extra speaks). Please add me to the email chain with the following email address: snodd003@umn.edu

Overview

Learning is the main focus of debate. I like arguments to be presented in a clear and logical manner (it can even be flawed logic, as long as it's coherent and feasible, I think it's legit.). So, there aren't many things I'm against teams running. TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR PLZ! Impact Calc and Roll of the ballot args are great.

Place a higher precedence on presenting evidence clearly and consistently (so not reading things incoherently fast unless e.v.e.r.y s.i.n.g.l.e t.h.i.n.g. is in your speech doc. Which it shouldn't be. If I'm not looking at you and typing, you're good. If I'm looking at you and leaned back, I'm waiting for flow-able info. If I'm looking at you and nodding I'm listening to good points that I feel have already been flowed.

Full disclosure: I'm a sucker for wipeout/death good args, idc which side it is lbvs. Maybe it's the high school emo in me. Best way to combat these args, to me, is go all into VTL and some change better than no change and, if applicable, the ppl who are getting effed over by sqou violence still don't want to die... then that gets into cruel optimism, yada yare yare.

Case

I'm fine with no plan affs. You just have to reeeeeally be ready to answer FW and T. You need to convince me of why running this aff w/o a plan will not work within the resolution. I'm a former 2A so sympathize with defending your case baby from the big scary neg lolz jk.

CPs

As long as the Neg can keep track of all the CPs they have, have all the cps you want. Just be ready to defend needing all of the cps if the aff chooses to go that route. Condo... is... a thing... I guess. The more cps you have, the high chance I'll believe condo bad args, cuz having that many multiple worlds is sorta abusive. So if you're running 7 or 8 cps, they better be dispo or uncondo, or have really great answers for why having that many condo worlds is necessary...

DAs

Fine and necessary args in policy.

Ks

Great! I love Ks and really love non-basic Ks. I don't like flimsy, vague alts. Even if it is as simple as Reject "x", I need to know what exactly what the world of the alt will look like and why it should be preferred to the aff's.

T

Topicality, to me, is different than theory (I flow them sep) and as long as voters are attached to it, I'll consider the args.

Theory

Is a prior question and needs to be addressed before talking about anything else. If we can't agree on how we talk to each other, then what does anything we say matter? ROB args are persuasive if voters are attached to it.

Speaker Points

Switching between hs and coll. debate sometimes throws me of, but I try to be really generous with them? If you're chill, courteous and not a butt during a round you get higher speaks.

Cutting people off aggressively and being unnecessarily snarky looses you speaks. I get if you're having a bad day or are going through some things that it may get taken out here in our community. If that's the case, just give the people in your round a heads up that you're in a mood.

wahoo !!

General:

pronouns: he/him

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

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).
Policy debate judge (1995-present) with ample LD and PF judging experience.

(most of this is tailored to policy, there are specific PF/LD comments below)

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

REPLY ALL.

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

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

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through.

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

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

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

*

Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

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

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

Global (all speeches):

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

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

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

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

1AC

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

1NC

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

2AC

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

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

2NC

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

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

1NR

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

1AR

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

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

2NR & 2AR

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

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

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

Kritik

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

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

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

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

Case

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

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

Theory

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

*

*

Lincoln Douglas:


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

*

*

Public Forum:

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

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

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

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

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

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

Dislikes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General

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

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

Weighing

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

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

E-mail for the chain: zack@zackstach.com

I have a background in debate as a debater, coach, and judge on the local and national circuits. I have coached successful teams in Michigan and Indiana. I'm looking forward to becoming more acquainted with the debate community where I now reside in Minnesota.

Paradigm

I am open and willing to vote for any and all positions and frameworks. That being said, I do have some preferences. I do not allow these personal preferences into the round as I strictly like to evaluate the round according to the line-by-line argumentation I see on my flow and the framework arguments set before me. Depending on the round, this isn't always clear. In the event that teams are not doing any (or enough) specific evidence/analysis comparison or have failed to establish a clear framework for round evaluation, here are some of my preferences:

"Policy" vs "K" framework

If you ask me outside of a round, I'll tell you that my preference is for a robust policy debate that exists solely in the post-fiat world. This does not mean you can't run a kritik or a critical affirmative in front of me. However, if neither team establishes a calculus for weighing pre-fiat vs post-fiat implications, I'm likely to default to my preference for policy.

Theory

Generally, 80% truth - 20% tech.

I think there is some justification and necessity for Negatives to explore a wide variety of counter-advocacies and topicality arguments in an effort to equalize ground. If forced to intervene, this framework would serve as a baseline for evaluating standards for fairness, abuse, and education.

This doesn't mean that the affirmative can't argue or win a "___ CP is abusive/illegitimate " argument in front of me. We all know that even when the negative has ample ground, they will still try to stretch it. Affirmatives have every right to maintain a fair division of ground.

Generally, I favor the view that a counter-advocacy (CP, kritik alternative, etc) should be positionally competitive as described by Brett Bricker: https://bit.ly/2UIXu44

It's probably fair to say that theory debates have had the most actual effect on shaping the way we debate. In other words, over the course of time, there have been real world impact to theory debates. Keeping that in mind, while I believe you need to prove in-round abuse, I also believe you need to win a scenario for future abuse/harm. To me, this impact analysis is what moves a theory argument beyond whining ("We weren't prepared for this; it's abusive") to a righteous defense of the activity.

Speaker Points

I like to award speaker points for:

- Clean, persuasive line-by-line clash and analysis

- Clear and effective speech structure; clear sign-posting, a roadmap that is strategic and clean, no hopping back and forth

- Compelling speech; using tone and speed changes to highlight arguments and increase engagement

- Creativity

Here are some ways to lose speaker points:

- I don't think the ability to share evidence relieves you of the obligation to be clear.

- Rudeness in speeches or CX.

Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before the round.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

I wanna make it so clear i go off what's on the flow if it's not on my flow i don't know it. so make sure to explain things well.

im down with k affs

I like T and Ks but i will vote for anything

I've been judging for a few years and i debated a bit before that (started judging in 2018)

Its okay to be nervous. debate especially when you just start debating can be really scary. Its okay take a deep breath. if that doesn't work talk to me we can ways pause the round for a minute or two for mental health.

Clarity comes before speed

Yes you can tag team but don't abuse it. (You can not tag team against a maverick )

Even if both teams are three headed monsters the third person who isnt in that debate CAN NOT help.

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.

If you don't make it clear your going onto a new card by saying next it is very possible I'll miss your tag.

Make it clear where you on in the speech by sign posting i will probably flow it on the wrong flow which wont make your argument stronger.

Its totally fine to be assertive but don't be mean if you get mean I'll dock speaker points.

If i see you not flowing all of the speeches i will dock speaker points.

Don't ask me questions in round if it deals with the round wait until the debate is over and im giving my rfd.

Extending a card isnt re-reading the card its reading the author year then explaining the warrant in your own words

I don't flow cross x. BUT if you say something that goes against the side you supposed to be on i will write it down in the notes

Tell me if there is anything you don't want me to comment on like if you have a stutter. I dont wanna be bring that up and possibly just annoying you. You can just say things like hey dont bring up if i get stuck on words alot. you dont need to tell me why.