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

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

My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Note:

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

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

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

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

Bonus points if you make me laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 12

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

Rounds judged this year (insert any year here): usually between 80-100

***Include me on the email chain (LD, CX)

Background:
I debated for St. Francis High School, in Minnesota, from 1989 to 1993, during which time I debated two years of CX and two years of LD. I also debated four years of CEDA debate, debating for various schools. I have been the Director of Speech and Debate at St. Croix Prep in Stillwater, Minnesota since 2013, and I have coached LD, CX, WSD, PF, BQ and all speech categories. I also teach ninth grade Ancient World Literature at St. Croix Prep.

Overall Philosophy:
I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships of different arguments and/or philosophical ideas. I also believe that competitive debate is an exercise in effective rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos). With all this in mind, I love debates that involve teams that know their position in the debate and are passionate about their arguments. If one team in a debate shows that they care more about their arguments than another team, this definitely can have an impact on how I evaluate the round. I typically evaluate each team’s use of evidence, reasoning, and passion to further their arguments and clash with their opponent’s arguments, hence my previous mention of the role of the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Most importantly: Be consistent, tell a good story, and explain your arguments in the context of what has happened up to that point in the debate. Teams that just read pre-written rebuttal speeches that don't contextualize their arguments don't usually do very well in front of me.

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and impact analysis. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I am not voting on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. However, if it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, there may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond as often as possible. I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX debate).

Speed:
Short Version: Be clear and intentional on your tags and author names; you can go faster on your evidence, but I should still be able to understand you. I prefer passion and intensity to speed. Most of my debaters are traditional LD debaters, so I'm not a big fan of circuit speed. Will I flow it if you are slowing for tags and authors? Sure. Will I like it, probably not s'much. In this regard, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you just go on-case and dump a bunch of stuff on the flow, I won't do your work for you.

Long Version: Many of today’s debaters (at least circuit debaters) are not doing much that is different than what has been done in the speed category over the last twenty years. However, I do have some preferences in this regard. When you are speaking at 250+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which invariably leads to miscommunications later on in the extension debate. One request that I have to resolve this issue is that debaters speak more articulate and “slower” in their presentation of their signposting, their claims, and their citations. This really shouldn't slow down the overall presentation of the speech by much, but it should make the presentation of those “flow-able” points more intentional. Additionally, I will not shout "clear" or "slower" if you aren't articulating your signposts, tags, and cites. An optimal speed is probably around 200-250 on average for me if you at least slow down for these three areas.

Persuasion:
As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

Preferences:
While I believe, as previously stated, that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some topical awareness in a debate. With that in mind, I would suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic as worded in the resolution, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution as in the direction of the resolution; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate, especially if I can imagine a world where the aff is just a neg kritik of affirming the resolution. I would say that my favorite debates are debates that are actually directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I do prefer critical affs that are actually topical). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid and supported rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination:

I really enjoy a great cross examination, especially because it allows debaters to really show their skills when it comes to the interactive part of debate. I think that cross examination is a place that really allows the most prepared debaters to shine. Because of this, I usually determine how I am going to assign speaker points based on a debater's performance in cross-ex. So, please don't ask if you can use the rest of CX as prep. That will always be a big "No."

I am okay with tag-team cross-examination in policy debate to a degree, but I hate it when one debater is clearly the puppet and their partner is the puppet master. This becomes obvious if one debater has no clue how to answer questions posed about what they just read in the speech. That being said, I would encourage you to use tag-team cross-ex as an emergency cord, not as something that should be used frequently.

The Ballot:
Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, as far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

Policy Notes:
As has been mentioned previously, I am accepting of most arguments, as long as the debaters are able to explain the rationale behind running such an argument and the impact that the argument has on the debate. I love direct clash, since I believe that this shows a team’s level of preparedness, especially in policy debate, but I also love good critical discussions as well. Overall, I would say that the biggest issue for me is speed. Please, please, please, at the very least, make your signposting, claims, and cites audibly clear and slower than the rest of your speech. I believe this also offers you the opportunity to add emphasis to these points as well, and in so doing show the passion you have for your arguments.

LD Notes:
For me, everything in Lincoln-Douglas debate should come back to the framework debate (value/criteria). However, if a debater decides to run a policy affirmative (or counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks on the negative), then I will decide the debate accordingly. However, just because you have a plan doesn't mean that the framework debate is automatically a Utilitarianism debate. If the opposing side reads a value and criteria and makes the debate about how we are to evaluate arguments (value/criteria), then you need to be ready for this debate, since (as previously stated) this is my predisposition in LD debate. A debater could win all of their contention level arguments and still lose a debate if they cannot prove that their method for evaluating the arguments should be preferred over their opponent's method. I think that some of the best LD debaters are those that can attack criteria with supporting evidence, or they can prove how they can perm their opponent’s criteria. Ultimately, I will vote on the voting issues presented in the debate (or impact calculus if the debate becomes a Util debate), but I will consider the criteria debate first and last when making any decision. That being said, I will entertain "nontraditional" affirmatives and negative positions in a debate (Topicality, Kritiks, Theory, etc), but you need to explain its relevance to the topic and/or arguments that have already been presented in the debate.

How I vote: I want debaters to tell me why I should vote for their position over their opponent's position. If you just barf a bunch of arguments onto the flow and don't explain how I should evaluate them against what your opponents have said, then I probably won't be too keen on buying in to your "story." I'm not a fan of judge intervention, so don't leave me too much room to make my own decision.

NEW STUFF***Kritikal Arguments Continued(CX/LD):

As mentioned before, I enjoy a well-run kritikal argument on either side of a topic; however, with this in mind, I have a few significant points I would like to discuss.

First, I believe that a kritik only holds its value when maintaining all primary parts as a cohesive whole (link, impact, alternative, and alternative solvency). That being said, if you try to extend the front half of a kritik as a non-unique disad, I will be unlikely to vote for it. There is some room for methodology to become a singular issue, especially in KvK debates, but I haven't seen those as often.

Second, a Kritikal Aff should still affirm the resolution (or be very much in the direction of affirming the topic) - I am a fairly firm believer in switch-sides debate, and I want to see teams that can think of the topic from different perspectives. I am fairly easily persuaded that Non-topical K Affs are taking away ground from the negative. Also, if the neg chooses to engage in a K v K debate, there are no perms, since perms in a methods debate are super abusive.

Third, a good alternative is a necessary part of the debate, but it can hinge on what you are trying to accomplish in the debate. If you are trying to affect change in the debate space with the hope of spillover, then your alternative should reflect this specifically. If you are trying to play the hypothetical game that the policymaking affirmative is playing, then play that game but be prepared to explain specific steps to the world of the alternative and what that world will look like.

Fourth, I am most familiar with the following Ks: Cap, SetCol, Biopower, Ableism, Death Cult, Anthro, IR, Borders. However, if you can explain the kritik to me in more cogent terms, I am willing to entertain other kritiks. What this probably means is - if you are running a unique K, slow down.I don't like to feel like my brain is melting.

Prep Time: Please don't steal prep by taking extra time to assemble the doc, attach the doc, and send the doc. I will run prep until the speech doc is received by me.

ONLINE: To keep these things running smoothly, I won't disclose at the end of the round.

THEORY: DIsclosure theory in LD is a non-starter for me. I am a small school coach, so I know the argument. I just don't like it. I firmly believe that disclosure norms are net worse for small schools.

He/Him

Minneapolis South

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

Significant rework: summer 2024. I’m old now. I've judged policy debate at the middle school and high school levels, and a few college rounds.

If you think the New York Liberty beat the Minnesota Lynx in the 2024 WNBA finals, you should strike me.

General Debate Philosophy:

Debate is for the debaters. Do what you are best at. You have worked hard on your arguments – don’t over adapt to me, just execute as well as you can. You could skip the rest of the paradigm and go back to cutting updates.

Ideological flexibility. No argument is presumptively out of bounds. If you said something is good, the other team can say it's bad. If the argument is horrible, it should be easy to answer. I have coached and judged teams that made a wide variety of arguments and voted for many arguments I disagree with. I refuse to draw lines like “I won’t vote on death good or racism good, but I will vote on first strike China”.

Make choices. Time limits mean that adding one argument means you spend less time on developing others. Sometimes I have under 15 minutes to decide your round. Instruct and simplify whenever possible. If an argument is incomplete when it is introduced and the other team flags it as such, I struggle to imagine a situation where I will limit new responses after the argument is completed.

Holistic evaluation. Where you start your final rebuttal is very important to me – more than other judges. I am less likely to decide a round on standalone issues and more likely to look at how those smaller issues spill up to create an overall vision of the debate. This doesn't mean you have to list 4 reasons you win at the beginning of the debate and then list them again later.

Pure technical evaluation of debates is impossible. Style and presentation are relevant. Conduct in round is relevant. Cross-x is relevant. The flow does not exist in a vacuum - I am a human being. Those factors affect what I write down, what I’m thinking about/how I feel when I write it down, and how I understand what I wrote down when I look at it later. You as a debater are relying on my knowledge of debate concepts when you communicate your speech, and in close rounds you don't have time to reinvent the wheel.

Topic research defines arguments. Any argument is fair game – but debate is a research game so arguments about the topic that are backed by timely, qualified, and innovative research are more likely to succeed. Analytic arguments can take out poorly constructed arguments or egregiously highlighted evidence. Arguments that are entirely recycled from previous years are boring. Critical knowledge is a part of the topic, if you were wondering.

Debate is an educational activity. Try your best and give your full effort towards winning. Be scrappy and creative. Every loss is an opportunity to learn and improve. “if you cannot make peace with results in a subjective activity, you are simply not an elite debater, imho” – Martin Osborn

Judging Process:

During the debate:

I will attempt to flow your speech, even if you ask me not to. On a computer if I have one, because my handwriting is poor. During your roadmap, please let me know if there’s an overview so I can insert cells. If you do not declare your overview and make more than 3 arguments, I will miss something while I make more space.

I am not the best flow on the circuit. This often stems from attempting to write too much of what you say or not knowing what I can skip. Having good labels at the beginning of your argument stem will ensure I am able to identify arguments later.

I will not open the speech doc during the debate unless I think you are clipping or cross-reading. The burden of communication is on you.

If I can understand what you are saying while you read card text, I will try to write down warrants or words you emphasize in the card, especially for longer cards. If I cannot understand what you are saying while you read card text, I will not look at the text of that evidence during the round or decision time, until I’ve submitted my RFD.

I give strong non-verbal feedback when I can’t understand you. I will verbally clear you twice if needed, even on a panel in egregious instances.

I regularly look at the speaker and each team during speeches. Speakers that connect with the judge and teams that observe how I am reacting will benefit from this.

I often take notes on Cross-x. I will verbally intervene in cross-x if there is a miscommunication that is easily resolved, or if there is excessive filibustering/question dodging.

If the debate is online, I would prefer your camera to be on, if possible. Also, please slow down a bit more. I will be more lenient about checking the doc if arguments are missed due to internet quality.

How I decide the debate:

My role is to decide who won (within time constraints given by the tournament), so I will try to follow a team down their shortest path to victory. Your shortest path to victory will include “even if” statements, which is an acknowledgement that you don’t need to win every argument to win the debate.

During the final rebuttals, I am considering the round framing given to me by each team and how much it reflects my flow of the debate. By the time most rounds (90%) end I have an initial idea of who won. I will double check that the core arguments are consistently extended and explained across speeches and cross-x.

If a round ends and is very close (maybe 10%), I will quickly write a ballot for each side to help organize the key issues, attempt to resolve those issues until one of the ballots separates itself from the other.

The rest of my decision time will be spent running through the arguments and evidence for the team I provisionally believe is losing to see if I’ve missed anything. If I find something interesting that could change the decision, I'll look at both sides in more depth. This means most of the time my feedback about evidence and strategy will be targeted towards the team that lost.

I strive to only intervene (insert my own thinking) in a few situations (don't make me do these):

• New 2ar arguments: since there is no 3nr, I will be careful that 2ar arguments can be traced backwards in the debate and strike them if necessary. I will strictly follow 2nr instruction, but I’ll try my best to protect the 2nr regardless. New arguments in earlier speeches need to be identified as new for me to strike them.

• Ships passing in the night: If both teams have plausible frames for understanding the debate, but do not make explicit arguments comparing those ideas, I will have to decide where to start. I will dig through my flows to find implicit framing questions.

• Both teams missed something big: the only way in my mind for something to become 100% true in a debate is a strategic concession – taking an argument presented by the other team and agreeing with it. If this happens early in the debate and implicates what you are talking about later and neither team talks about it, it's up to me to figure out what to do with it.

If you want me to read evidence during the part of the decision time where it's still up in the air which team won the debate:

• Please read in a way where I could understand it

• Please highlight what is good about the evidence, compare it to the other teams, etc.

• If there is a lot of evidence that you think qualifies for me to read, and it was referenced in the final rebuttal, you can send a card doc.

I will not reconstruct the round based on the docs if I’m confused. If the above standards aren’t met, I’ll stumble my way to a decision based on the explanations I was given, then look back through the evidence afterwards to see what SHOULD have been said by the debaters.

The rest of it:

Ask me about my judging record:

Debate rounds can’t be summarized by the round report. Style and execution matter more. If both teams are in the room, feel free to ask me about what happened in or how I decided any round I judged, my abstract thoughts about topic arguments, how I would have voted in nearly any debate that is on youtube (I’ve watched many – nerd alert).

I am not a member of any of the following cults (you will have to convince me to join over the course of the debate):

• Offense/Defense (I am certainly a top percentile judge for zero risk strategies, whether its presumption, links to the net benefit, zero risk of net benefit, etc)

• Debate is only a game because it’s a game

• Procedural arguments are exclusion

What are your argument preferences?

I like openness/honesty, respect for opponent and inclusivity. In my professional life I must "meet people where they are at". I believe that would be a healthy approach to debate and accordingly I am interested most in "middle ground" approaches in situations where teams fundamentally disagree about what the debate should be about. For example, k affs that have an interesting spin on what it means to be topical, or a critique that is primarily about the core assumptions of the aff. However, I am not naïve and understand that this style is rarely considered the most strategic, so I will not punish you for doing what you believe will "win" you the debate.

Feel free to post round or email me for feedback:

But if your approach in the post round is "what about this argument, what about this argument?" and you are listing one liners from the last minute of the speech, consider spending the time on a rebuttal redo where you make those arguments matter more, rather than convincing yourself that you've never lost a debate.

Minnesota Teams/regional teams without much national circuit exposure:

Use the wiki! (https://opencaselist.com/). I will boost your points (you might have to remind me but I'll try to remember). If everyone posts on the wiki, we can all save a lot of time tracking down what arguments everyone reads and spend more time preparing for better debates. If you need help setting up a wiki or navigating it, send me an email or catch me at a tournament and I’ll be happy to help. This is important for local tournaments because you get so little time to prep before the round.

Good disclosure at the tournament is also helpful. If you have a wiki that is updated, it’s easier during the preround to let folks know that your past 2nrs are on the wiki, but that only works if that is up to date. Honest and quick disclosure = more time to prep = better debates!

Think through your theory arguments if you are going for them. Not every bad or unfamiliar argument is unfair. Reading theory is also part of a broader strategy to constrain the other team's options and force responses. It still requires you to respond to opposing counter arguments – there is no one set agreed upon list of rules, so you’ll need to debate it out!

he/him

Debated Policy at Highland Park in Saint Paul for 4 years

Also debated 4 years of parli in college lol

Retired coach for Highland Park

put me on the chain - ziglaser@gmail.com

NOVICE ONLY

0. FLOW!!! Please! If you show me your flow after the round I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

1. Extensions wise, if parts of an argument aren't contested and you don't extend them explicitly, I'll still probably give them to you. I get it, novice debate is hard, and focusing on the areas of clash is important and takes a lot of time.

2. Keep talking. If you have anything you could possibly say about the debate, say it if otherwise you are going to sit down 1/2 way through your 2NC.

3. Do impact calculus, and when you do, you should be comparing it to the other team, e.g. "Even if they win that long-term economic growth causes global warming, short-term economic decline still causes our impact, which kills us first."

General Stuff

I will vote for or against any argument that isn't on face offensive (ie racism good). I am a big believer in tech (what is truth even?), but anyone that claims to be tabula rasa is lying--we all have biases that influence what we find persuasive. Just know that if I'm adjudicating direct clash between reality and BS, it'd be helpful to argue what you think I want to hear.

I like CX, let's keep it that way. I'm sometimes snarky, but there is a fine line between snarky and rude, and I'd prefer if you don't cross it. I get it's hard to come up with questions and prep, so I won't take it out on your speaks if you're bumbling through: "so, uh, why doesn't you internal link fail" for 3 min, but I will reward good CX, and note key concessions. I suppose this is where I'll spot the generic "don't be a terrible human being" line. Don't. Debate should be fun above all else and I will call you out in round.

Speed - I want to be transparent about this: I am not as fast a flow-er or understand-er as I was in high school. For the most part, I will hold that as my responsibility and follow along on the doc to supplement my flow. I do not want to let my limitations undercut your practiced debate skills. I will do my best to catch analytics, but they are more likely to be on my flow (and imo it's better for debate) if you send them in the doc. Where I will hold firm is that you need to be physically saying the words highlighted in the card. If I focus on your voice and cannot make out each word, you are not reading the card. If this happens you will hear me say "clear", I will do this 3 times, and then I will stop flowing.

+5 speaks for Jake Swede metaphors or anecdotes.

Neg Stuff

T - I loved it before I went for it too much ("T/To" all the way!), then I hated it, and now... we're chill. I will vote straight tech on T. Unless it's an argument, I don't care whether an aff is the most common on the topic or never read before (and I think I mean this more than other judges who say this). I generally default to competing interpretations but am willing to vote on reasonability. "Reasonability" does not include the argument "the aff is reasonably topical" and if you are trying to make that argument, to quote my coach, the amazing Aiji Endo, out of context: "I will stare intensely at you for as long as it takes you to realize this is not a winning argument."

CP - I'm willing to vote on any counterplan and any counterplan theory. For the most part, I think counterplan theory needs in-round abuse or demonstrable potential for abuse in the setup of a specific round to avoid being blippy gotchas that win rounds on a fluke. Of course, this is debateable.

DAs - Like 'em. I like Politics. A lot. Please give me a good politics debate. I also like other disads. Also, most disads are awful and have incoherent internal link chains. You should clown on these in front of me. 0 risk is possible.

Ks - Links matter a lot. Links of omission are not links if the affirmative wins they're links of omission. I was once told to impact turn settler colonialism by a judge. DON'T IMPACT TURN SETTLER COLONIALISM. (to be clear I do think there are legit impact turns on Ks, Cap, Biopower, etc). The alternative provides uniqueness to the kritik, and usually deserves for attention from both the aff and neg.

FWK - I'm pretty centrist here. The strongest framework is T/anything-other-than-USFG. The rounds and the speaks will probably look poorly if you don't engage with the affirmative in the meaningful way. 1-off FWK is boring, why not come up with some dumb off-case you won't go for too? I'm more likely to vote on new/creative fwk arguments than a team heirloom that's been read for 10 years.

K affs - I think they're pretty neat. I've always run a policy aff but quite enjoy being in rounds vs a K aff. That said, clowning on the edging-on-abusive vagueness of most k-affs is the most fun you can have in debate, and I probably have a much lower bar for voting on presumption than most.

Aff stuff

I never feel like the aff gets enough play in a paradigm, so I'll try to say a few things.

1. If the neg drops major parts of case, I need a sentence or two of story, but nothing beyond that. Name the authors that matter to the rest of the debate.

2. You probably should get to weigh some part of the aff against a K, though what that looks like needs to be argued. I think policy affirmatives obviously create as much discourse as a Kritik which could be positive or negative.

3. The 1AR is the hardest speech in the round, but by god don't make it the least organized. Stick to the flows and you'll be A-OK.

Definitely Unironic Personal Beliefs

???? Bowties are cool ????

???? Cap Good ????

???? 20 Nurses in Rural Michigan is all this world needs ????

???? God is Dead ????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: joshgroven@hotmail.com

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

Last Updated 11-21-20

Yes, put me on the email chain: hathawaydebate@gmail.com

I use He/Him pronouns

You can call me Logan/ judge, no preference

Currently a sophomore at UMN studying environmental science and sustainability

TLDR For Novices:

1. Clarity > speed (ESPECIALLY WITH ONLINE ROUNDS)

2. I won't flow a tag if I don't pick up on it, so please say "next" or something similar so I know what to flow

3. I won't flow new positions brought up in the block unless you give me a solid reason to do so. If you read a new position in any rebuttal your speaker points will be significantly harmed

4. Neg needs to explain what their advocacy does for me to give it any weight. Don't just say "extend the [CP/K/DA]." Explanation is everything

5. Yes tag team is fine, just don't abuse it

6. I really like the K but run it well

7. It'd be helpful if you could tell me your names/ pronouns/ speaker positions before round (online rounds: put these in your on-screen name)

8. Please time yourselves. It gets old when I have to interject you and say "that's time" every speech. Get into this habit early

9. Extra speaks for starting early (if I'm the reason we start late I'll still give this to you)

TLDR for JV/V:

FOR STATE: put analytics in the speech doc

1. I like theory/ T, but if you spread it I'll stop flowing

2. Clarity > speed (ESPECIALLY WITH ONLINE ROUNDS), both if possible

3. I won't flow a tag if I don't pick up on it

4. Neg gets 4 offcase max. Anything past that is abusive to the aff

5. I will not flow new positions brought up in the block unless you give me a good reason to do so

6. Neg needs to explain what their advocacy does for me to give it any weight

7. This should be the standard for every judge imo, but I'm not gonna extrapolate anything for you. I evaluate the round based on what was said in the round, not on me completing the argument for you

8. It'd be helpful if you could tell me your names/ pronouns/ speaker positions before round (online rounds: put these in your on-screen name)

9. Extra speaks for starting early (if I'm the reason we start late I'll still give this to you)

Experience: Debated four years for Rosemount High School. Currently a 2nd year novice coach for Rosemount. The main thing I've spent my time on in debate is T/ Policy, main strat was TKO, but I know how to follow other positions

Framing: Here's how I currently view debate:

At its core, I think debate is a game, but broader than that it's a space to learn and educate others about issues you care about. As much as debate is a game, it's an educational activity as well.

Affirmatives: I'm used to policy affs, and have more understanding with their utility. I've heard critical affs before, but I'm not that familiar with its function and the components that construct one, so if you're thinking of running a more critical aff in front of me, clarity and clash are key (I'm also cool with you just not running a K aff in front of me). The aff must be within the resolution, and it must defend its plan text the whole round as it sets the path for the whole round. Soft-left impacts are more believable to me than nuclear war, but weighing Timeframe/ Magnitude/ Probability is how I evaluate impacts.

(If you actually read my paradigm and want an extra .5 speaks, make a reference to your favorite Vine on one of your speech docs)

Disads: I don't have any problem with this type of neg strat. Only thing I can say here is that you better have a strong link or your position goes away real quick. Unless the aff never answers it, the work you do with the link should be consistent throughout your speeches. Running a DA as a Net Benefit to a Counterplan is always nice.

Counterplans: They don't have to be topical, but they should be competitive. I default to the perm until neg shows me how it's bad.

Topicality/ Framework/ Theory: Love it. I've got lots of experience running this kind of stuff so whether or not you know how to run it, I'd be happy to hear what you got. I believe the plan must be topical and that it is the starting point for every round. So if there's compelling evidence that your aff is not topical, chances are you're gonna lose. Extra T is kinda touchy so if you do end up using this T, just explain what part of the debate is hindered by them solving stuff outside the rez. Effects T is also viable. Basically, outline clear in round abuse and I'm likely to vote for it. If you spread any of these flows/ arguments I will stop flowing

CX is a speech

Overall conduct in round: racism, sexism, homophobia, unnecessary rudeness, etc. isn't tolerated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun!

About Me

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

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

He/Him pronouns.

Put me on the email chain, hpkelly37 at gmail.

TLDR

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

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

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

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

-Be polite in general please

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

Specific stuff

Fwk vs K aff

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

As you can probably guess, I love them.

sabrinakowal.debate@gmail.com

Introduction

Hi everyone! My name is Sabrina and I am part of the coaching staff at Minneapolis South High School. I debated from 2016-2020 at the University of Minnesota. Before coming to South I was a UDL community Coach at Roosevelt High School, Highland Park High School, and most recently Washington Technology Magnet School. I began debating in college, and was not involved in debate when I was a high school student, so everything that I have come to understand about high school debate I learned from debaters like you.

This year, I am doing an Americorps term of service as a Promise Fellow youth mentor with the Minnesota Alliance with Youth at South High School. If you have any questions about what Americorps is like, what the benefits are, or the different opportunities there are for young people to serve in the Minneapolis area, feel free to ask me!

I really enjoy working with young people and working at schools, so I would like to thank you for deciding to be a debater and for giving me, and all of the judges at this tournament, the opportunity to meet you and speak with you :)

Conduct in the Round

Punctuality - My preference is for the 1AC to be standing up and ready to speak at the exact start time of the round. That means that 5 minutes before the start time, you already started an email chain and sent the affirmative out to everyone in the round. I have had to decide debates before the final rebuttals due to tardiness, and I want you all to have the opportunity to finish the debate and ask questions.

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

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

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

How to Win

I will let you read any new evidence in any constructive speeches and I will give you the full weight of all of that evidence. For example: if you read an entirely new off case position in the 2NC, the aff must read new evidence in the 1AR to respond.

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

On "reversibility": It is impossible for any impact to be "reversible" because we cannot go back in time and change what has already happened. If the economy declines, it can recover, but in the period of decline some people have already lost their housing or their job, or they have passed away due to some loss of services. The purpose of the debate is to consider the real consequences of realistic policy actions. Reversing impacts would almost require a separate debate round to consider the feasibility of reversing what has already taken place. For these reasons, I don't think that it's useful for us to think of impacts on a spectrum of reversibility.

Technical decisions come before argumentative content, but both are key to win the ballot. The content of your arguments ought to be reasonable, probable, and mostly true, AND you must present your arguments in a technically coherent manner. When extending arguments, simply repeating the author's name is not enough. In order for me to consider the argument extended into the speech, you must always explain the warrant from the evidence you wish to extend. Avoid reading new cards in the 2NC/2AC if those warrants already exist in the 1NC/1AC.

Communicate with your partner to ensure that the first rebuttal contains all arguments that will be needed for the final rebuttal. The first rebuttal is where you ought to be most vigilant about not dropping arguments.

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

Speaker Points

When I evaluate speaker points, it ends up being a rough relative ranking of all the speakers in the round. If I think that you have a more or less polished style of debating than your opponents or your debate partner, it will be reflected in your speaker points. I consider your technical/argumentative decisions, your presentation, and sportsmanship when assessing speaker points. It is not an exact science so please don't take speaker points very seriously or very personally: in this round or in any other round, with any other judge.

Final Thoughts

Good luck! I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

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

I will vote on most anything, during my highschool career I leaned towards the basic kritiks (Biopower, Cap K), and rhetoric kritiks (nuclearism, fem, post-colonialism) but if inherency is your winning strategy don't hold anything back. If you plan on running a "not on the wiki" sort of argument, it has to meet an incredibly high threshold for me to vote on it - for instance, them dropping the issue in it's entirety and, therefore, agreeing that they "did a bad."

Tech >Truth except for Racism/Sexism/Discrimination. Debate is a competitive academic argumentation event. Reading cards at me is just the beginning of what you should be doing. Your job is to convince me that your position (Plan/Alternative/Counterplan/Status Quo) is the best and reading random pieces of evidence isn't the sort of interaction and argumentation that convinces me of your position being true.

Referring to me as "Your Supreme Excellency" once will get you a minimum of a 27.3 speaker points. Some of my colleagues may believe this is silly, but it's proof for me that you read my paradigm going into the round and are adapting to my preferences.

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

If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it. If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.

There is a fine line between assertive and overly aggressive - don't be a jerk or your speaker points will suffer. I think that the most important thing we get from debate is education about the topic as well as the connections we make with other people in our little community - remember that the other team are also people.

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

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

she/her

Coach at Washington Tech

The Blake School 2011-2015 - competed in both the local and national circuit. Cleared to doubles at a couple of octos-bid tournaments, had moderate competitive success.

I ran a wide variety of arguments in high school from very policy focused to more critical. I did not debate in college, but I was heavily involved in doing theory research during my time in college. I spent a year in Finland working with their Centre for Religious Recognition, reading and researching a lot of theory, specifically about black liberation theology and its intersections with recognition theory. So I really geek out on theory.

That being said, I highly value and recommend that you fully explain and contextualize your arguments in the context of the round. My biggest preference as a judge is that a team really does a thorough job explaining their arguments and showing how that interacts with the other team. That can look like a very clean and precise line by line, or it can look like some stellar impact framing, but I need you to fully contextualize your arguments. Don't just rely upon jargon to get you through the round.

I will vote on what you tell me to vote on. Make your case for me. I like Kritiks, but I also genuinely enjoy hearing a well done debate on a policy focused disad. Make sure you cover your bases, answer your opponents arguments, and give me a compelling role of the ballot/impact framing that is fully fleshed out and extended throughout the debate.

Other than that, speed is fine just be clear, use a clear transition word, and just generally don't be a jerk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Affiliation: Edina High School

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

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

General Thoughts/Views on Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Arguments:

Topicality:

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

Straight Up Strats:

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

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

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

Ks and Non-Traditional Strats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good (and anything like these arguments)

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

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

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

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

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

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

2. I tend to be a soft-left-oriented judge, although I am comfortable with policy styles as it's what I used to debate. If you want to run a more obscure Kritik, be sure to fully explain it as if I have never heard of the philosophy before.

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

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

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

make good arguments

2014-18, Eagan HS MN

2018-19, Concordia College Debate (RIP)

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

Qualified NDT years: 2019-2020 (RIPx2)

Pronouns: She/Her

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

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

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

Personal Background

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

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

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

In short, almost* anything goes

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

CP

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

DA

Does anyone even have controversial opinions on these?

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

K

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

Framework/"T"

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

in short, I reward tenacity.

Aff

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

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

Random thoughts

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

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

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

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

local non-circuit POLICY MN tournaments only

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

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

Minigame

because debate should be fun here's a game

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

In-Round Etiquette

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