Please do not spread.

Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

I judge mainly based on the following three criteria:

1.) argumentation/debate: bringing up new arguments and addressing other debaters in the chamber

2.) participation: speaking and questioning frequently

3.) speeches: evidence and justification for arguments

I am a parent judge so please speak slower than usual if you choose to go fast please use a clear diction

This is my first time judging a tournament!

Paradigm given in round, it seems to change every year. Sorry :D

PF for 4 years, coach for 1. IX in speech for 4 years, nationals twice, state once. Currently studying international politics at Georgetown. I am a sad college student.

A few quick facts:

- I do not care for kritiks. Theory is fine, but please keep it topical.

- Please have decent citations with credentials. So long as credentials are mentioned in-round, I will weigh/respect the source. I DO NOT wipe sources off the flow for bad citations, but I will ALWAYS consider well-cited sources over things like "Brown 12."

- Going a bit over time is fine, but I will cut speeches off at 15 seconds over time. You will have 1 sentence to wrap up your thoughts.

- Please signpost well to aid my flows.

- I despise spreading - please explain the RELEVANCE of the cards/blocks/briefs you present in rebuttal.

- Summary is intended to boil the round down to key voters, NOT AS A SECOND REBUTTAL. Keep it organized.

- I do flow cross-ex. Be conscious of what you say and how you conduct yourself.

- Keep in mind who has the burden of proof.

- Be respectful of your opponent - try not to be accusative.

- I do weigh non-quantified or abstract impacts.

Best of luck to all of you!

1. I am generally predisposed to teams that feel like they are attempting to persuade me, the judge, vs. exclusively their opponent. Many debates get too deeply into the weeds and fail to provide some kind of clear, overarching narrative — similarly, individual arguments are too often under warranted, with no analysis, and without a clear resolution of existing clash. Debate, to me, feels the most valuable and enjoyable when the skills demonstrated seem transferable / relevant to real-life argumentation and discourse — this means accurately tagged arguments that are developed throughout the round and rebuttals that show clear engagement with the content of opponent’s arguments. I prefer summaries that are not pseudo-rebuttals and that clearly explicate the narrative of the team while also providing offensively-minded voters and substantive weighing.

2. Evidence / in-round ethics are both extremely important to me. If at any point it becomes clear that a team is mis-representing, mis-labeling or otherwise abusing evidence, there will be a severe reduction in speaker points. I am also open to dropping the team if it seems like it’s given them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all this, I am generally against paraphrasing unless the paraphrased content absolutely adheres to the content of the original source.

3. In-round civility is extremely important to me. Teams that are overly aggressive in crossfire, steal prep, go well over on time, or take forever when pulling up evidence will have reduced speaker points. Teams that cross over from rudeness into racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc… will be dropped (this includes arguments that contain racist, sexist, etc...warranting)

4. I understand the necessity for speed and heavily truncated argumentation in some rounds but generally have an overwhelming preference for a conversational pace and clear analysis. As such, I dislike the use of debate jargon and overuse of debate community patter (“A couple problems here” “This evidence is really, really clear!” “Recognize -”).

5. I will do my best to vote strictly off the flow but even within that paradigm it’s impossible to remain absolutely divorced from some degree of subjective decision-making over the course of a round. Thus, as with any judge, whether explicitly stated or not, I’m going to be heavily predisposed to the arguments that make coherent sense to me, starting from the constructive. Too many rebuttals and cases feel like ransom notes in which two or three words from thousands of evidence sources have been copy and pasted together to form something borderline incoherent. To put it another way — I’m not against surprising or novel argumentation but if something seems fake, it’ll feel weaker to me in a round. That being said, I want to limit judge intervention as much as possible and will do everything possible to not incorporate things external to what’s been argued in the round.

The best debates I’ve seen always seem to leave both debaters feeling like they’ve had fun. I’m confident that fulfilling these five preferences will lead to a strong round more often than not. Thank you!

Addition: I’m open to Ks and other kinds of experimental debate. I haven’t had a lot of experience judging them and the ones I’ve seen have generally been deeply unconvincing but I’m not against them at all

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd consider myself a lay judge. My sister Maddie Cook coaches PF for Lakeville North & Lakeville South in Minnesota, and she's roped me into judging. So, basically, this. This is my second year judging, and I've mostly judged novice and a little JV PF. Here are some thoughts I have based on the debates I've judged so far:

• I like it when link chains are explicitly clear and when you clearly state what the impact is.
• Go slower than you would in front of a coach.
• I may miss a few technical things.
• Probably don't read theory or K's...

I was a Policy Debater in high school over 20years ago. I judged mostly PF in 2021. In 2022 I am also judging LD. I like to think I judge only based on the arguments presented, but I know that presentation skills do influence my decision.

I try to come into each round tabula rasa. The debaters control the information I know and the flow of the round, please be organized in you arguments or I may miss your point. I do not always take notes during cross, so if want to prove a point, bring it up the in speeches.

I think debate is a great activity, I am excited to be apart of it. Have fun, learn something and feel free to teach me something as well.

Thanks,

Matt Cordina

Name: Tom Fones

School Affiliation: SPA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 33

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

If you are a coach, what events do you coach?

What is your current occupation? Retired Teacher and Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Need to be understandable, prefer slower than most.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big Picture. Prefer collapse to major issues.

Role of the Final Focus- Show voting issues and weigh.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches- Need to extend arguments to impact them.

Topicality- If needed.

Plans Not explicit plans in PF.

Kritiks- Will listen

Flowing/note-taking- Of course flowing, but the content is important, so a drop is not fatal without significant impact.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Don’t require, but think it’s generally good strategy.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I greatly appreciate civility and clear analysis of issues. There is no need for an off-time roadmap in PF.

I’m P.F. Judge -this being the form I practiced in my High School Days. I’m an Elected City Councilor who uses debate skills in this role, decades later.

I look for clear speech and not speed reading…I ask my debaters to track their own times- as an added style discipline.

I encourage each and everyone to grow in self confidence, research, and public speaking. I expect respect for each other and the collaboration of the Debate.

The strongest argument wins- Let’s Enjoy this Debate Experience Together!

Extemp:

I competed in extemp for three years at Edina HS. My career highlights were reaching NCFL and NSDA National finals. Since then, I have coached MBA RR invites, NSDA, ETOC, UKTOC, and NCFL national finalists at Shrewsbury HS (MA) and Edina HS (MN), where I currently coach. I have also privately coached students in South Florida and South Texas and have some familiarity with those circuits.

I am what you might call a content judge. But I do care about time and time allocation (it’s not a fair competition if you get 8 minutes while your opponents get only 7; tough to make a good argument in only 30 seconds, etc.).

This is how I will rank you and your opponents, items rank-ordered:

1. Did you answer the question? If you answered the question, I evaluate you against others who answered the question. If not, vice versa. This is the most important point for me as a judge. He or she who provides the best answer to his or her selected question will win the round. If you do not answer the question — giving a “how should” answer to a “will” question, for example – expect to earn a bad rank. I've watched NSDA and TOC finalists fail to answer the question and I did not hesitate to give them the 5.

2. Did you emphasize the arguments? Did your claims have warrants? Did you terminalize your impacts back to the question? Importantly, were there contradictions within your substructure or between your points (even if these weren’t expressely articulated, the logical conclusion of one point may contradict that of another point)?

3. With what sources did you corroborate your arguments? Were your sources recent? High quality? Did you consider the key experts in the field?

4. How were the performative elements (delivery)? Did you exude confidence and use your voice and body to command the space? Did you offer a relevant AGD? Were you monotone or did you provide vocal variety? Did you have on-tops? Did they meaningfully contribute to the speech?

I care least about delivery because evaluations of delivery are necessarily subjective. Just as people react differently to jokes, judges will find performative elements (humor/emotions) differently entertaining/funny/sad/etc. In my mind, a content focus is the only consistently fair judging paradigm for extemp.

When deciding between two or more high quality extemp speakers, I find that four things set speakers apart (not rank-ordered, all items matter to me):

1. Difficulty of question. If two speakers provide equally good speeches but one speaker answers a much more difficult question (triads, obscure policies/issues, etc.) that speaker may earn a better rank (same logic as opp. averages as a tie breaker).

2. Quality of sources. Did you cite think tanks, esteemed professors/thinkers, journals, BOOKS?

3. Framing the question. Did you give me key background on the actors/terms in the question and tell me the gravity/importance of the question? Did you explain to me what an answer means in terms of the wording of the question (what it means for a policy to be “successful” or “effective” etc.)?

4. Delivery/wit.

Debate:

Add me to the email chain: tannerhawthornej @ gmail.com. I coach Edina HS PF and extemp speaking.

I debated LD and PF for Edina High School for three years. I’m now a junior at Dartmouth, I'm on the policy team. I personally know Raam Tambe.

I can flow fast and will evaluate all arguments. The winner of my ballot will be the better debater(s), not the the debater(s) that run args I like. As such, I won't draw arbitrary lines at certain types of arguments. Speaks will suffer if a debater is rude/offensive. If you have more questions feel free to ask before the round.

For PF, I will not evaluate offense that’s dropped in summary. If you go for something in final focus it needs to be in summary (except d). PF is more about persuasion than the other debate events, I’ll keep that in mind. Weigh or you’re asking for intervention. Don’t really care about speed for PF but I haven’t seen speed give much of a competitive advantage on PF. Evidence ethics is the biggest problem I’ve encountered in PF. I will call for cards so be ready to have good evidence ethics. I will give incredibly low credence to bad ev ethics. Analytic responses are fine, misconstruing evidence is lying.

For LD, I’m good at flowing the T/CP/DA/stock FW debate but often don’t know the K lit. This doesn’t mean I’ll drop Ks, I just need a clear articulation. It probably needs to be slower than you're used to. I won't flow what I can't understand. Slow down for theory. You’re calling out in round abuse not reading a card so I need to understand what you’re saying. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory.

For Policy, my experience is one term competing in college on the NDT/CEDA circuit.

Hello, I am a fourth year parent judge with lots of experience on the MN local circuit. Here are the main things I care about. Outside of these, feel free to use your creativity and discretion to sway me towards your arguments.

**IF YOU RUN NUCLEAR WAR ON STUDENT LOAN DEBT I’M NOT VOTING FOR YOU**

• Mind your speed - this is not a speed reading competition. It is hard to keep up with your ideas if all my focus is spent trying to keep up with the words. Moreover, if I don’t understand what you say, it’s hard to give you points!
• Truth over tech. I value well though-out analytics equally as much as empirics.
• Keep it respectful during round. Disrespecting the other team or mean behavior will not be tolerated.
• I take notes throughout the round, including cross. So don’t worry if I’m scribbling away when you are speaking. I’m listening.
• Regardless of the validity or logic of an argument/contention (or lack thereof), I will buy it if the other side does not challenge it.
• I do not buy any theories, Ks, or any sort of technical tricks used in round. I expect you to debate the resolution.

Finally, while impact is obviously important, I am almost never swayed by the prospect of all of us dying in 2030 because of global warming, nor do I expect us all to die of nuclear strike at the drop of a hat. Nuanced arguments are more valuable as they are more real-world.

Good luck, and feel free to ask me for feedback at the end of the round if you want it :)

erink@gustavus.edu

Be nice!

Debate is about fun! This means don't be:

-Racist

-Sexist

-Hyper aggressive

-Homophobic

-Transphobic

-Abelist

-Ignorant

-An overall not fun person to be around.

For most people, this should be really easy...

Speed

Go for it! I'm no policy debater but I very much am able to keep up with a higher pace. If I don't flow it, and it becomes an issue, I will probably ask you to reread a point or two. PF is supposed to be about letting the public understand, so speed is fine, but spreading is not.

Weighing Arguments and Deciding the Round

I will always evaluate strong, well warranted arguments over arguments that have been "clean extended" but aren't well warranted.

What does this mean for you?

It means that if you want me to evaluate an argument, you need to explain to me:

A) what happens when you vote for you or the other team (explain your link chain, even if briefly),

B) why you are able to extend this argument (respond to arguments against it), and

C) what that argument means for the round (weigh).

If any response in rebuttal is not explained clearly enough the FIRST TIME I hear it, I will almost never vote for it. Don't card dump without explanation, it's not real debate. (ie: just saying "TURN Colby 16 says, NFU leads to increased chance of nuclear war." isn't enough. Either Colby or you need to explain to me WHY.

Summary is the MOST IMPORTANT speech in the round. You need to narrow down the debate to key issues, and explain to me why you're winning. This is where your final arguments need to be fleshed out. A summary is not a second rebuttal, so don't use it as such. Narrow things down. Tell me what to vote for you on.

Intervention

I try to intervene as little as possible in making the decision, so make it easy for me. Tell me what to vote for you on, and tell me why it matters. If neither team does this, or does it in a blippy way, I will be forced to make a decision for myself (and you don't want that).

Argument Extension

If it's not in summary, anything new in final focus will be dropped. Summary and FF should be more or less the same speech.

Speech-Specific Thoughts

Aff rebuttal has no need to re-explain their case (though if you run out of time it's better than sitting down early). If you can, spend all of your time on the Neg's case.

For Neg Rebuttal, please respond to the arguments they place on your case. Give yourself time to talk about both cases. If you're really cool, you'll spend some time weighing at the end.

I believe Aff Summary has the opportunity to read new cards and arguments to me. However, aff summary can ONLY read anything new if they have been implicated earlier in the round AND if it is relevant to something you already said. Don't forget to weigh, and give me voters. Give time to not just respond to them. Remember, Summary is not a second Rebuttal.

In Neg Summary, it's now too late in the round (in my opinion) to bring up new evidence/arguments that I haven't heard before. The Neg Summary should be about collapsing the round into its main issues, and explaining why you're winning, not responding to the Aff.

For both Final Focus's, give me voters. If they were in summary (which they should've been), you can just restate them. The Summary and the Final Focus should be very similar sounding.

In every crossfire, I'll have my volume on, but I will not be actively listening. Bring it up in speech if it's important.

Calling for Evidence

Email chain or shared google docs works fine. Email is at the top. If you're looking at a card, take prep. If it takes too long to find a card (over 4 minutes), I'll ask us to move on so we can take care of it later.

Theory/K's

Theory is more acceptable, but I have a relatively low tolerance for things like this in PF. If you are going to run theory against your opponent, you must be prepared to defend and explain it throughout the round. The two theory arguments I may evaluate in PF are bad evidence and evidence ethics (power tagging or misconstruing). I will not evaluate a paraphrasing argument unless I am proven the paraphrase is actually misconstruing or lying about the source.

Speaks (Stolen from Inko Bovenzi)

I raise speaks for novices (especially if you're debating in varsity because it's tough!).

Note: If tournaments force me to give different speaks to everyone in the round, say that I must round to the nearest .5, ban low points wins, or do anything else that restricts the speaks I can give, I will raise your speaks to remain in accordance with the rules.

29.6-30: You showed extraordinary technical ability in your debating, AND/OR you made a very interesting strategic decision that was not abusive, but granted you a great advantage in the round (ex. you went all in for a double turn your opponents made). If you make an interesting decision that turns out to be flawed, it will probably cost you the round, but I will reward the creativity with my speaker points.

29-29.5: You weighed well, covered the flow very well, made high-quality responses, and made the right strategic decisions in the round.

28-28.9: You didn't drop any major responses/arguments, you offered some weighing, and condensed the round down to just one (max two) pieces of offense in the final two speeches.

Note that if you got below a 28 you probably violated/ignored some part of my paradigm and/or significantly annoyed me.

27-27.9: Your flow coverage could have been better, but you addressed the major points of the round and added some new analysis.

26-26.9: You failed to speak, or spoke for a very small fraction of your time.

25 or below: You said/did something racist, sexist etc (speaks based on severity).

(Public Forum, Classic, Congress) and 2 years in speech (Discussion).

I will vote for the team that can impact and weigh effectively. Don't just tell me all the great things about your side and/or the bad things about your opponent's side. Tell me why your side is better than the other team. WEIGH!

Speed: I don't mind a little speed as long as I have enough time to flow your arguments.

Evidence: Read me direct quotes, don't paraphrase. I want a proper citation for your source (Author name, credentials, where is the source from, date).

Summary and/or final speeches: Tell me what is the big picture and what I should be voting on.

Experience: 7 years of judging PF and Congress, Juris Doctor with Legal background.

Philosophy:

I approach debate as an educational activity that fosters critical thinking, effective communication, and the exploration of various perspectives. My role is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented, the quality of evidence and analysis, and the overall coherence of the debate.

Roles of the Debaters:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear, concise, and organized speeches. Debaters should articulate their points effectively, signpost, and provide a clear roadmap for the round.

2. Argumentation: I prioritize well-developed and supported arguments. Provide strong evidence and analysis to back up your claims. Quality over quantity; I prefer a few strong points to numerous weak ones.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttal involves addressing the core of the argument, not just the surface-level claims.

4. Flexibility and Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on your opponent's arguments and the direction of the round.

Evidence and Sources:

From my legal education and background, I pay very close attention to sources. Cite reliable and credible sources. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. If a source is questionable, make sure to highlight this in your argumentation.

Cross-Examination:

I consider cross-examination to be an integral part of the debate. It's an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extract concessions from your opponent. Effective cross-examination can significantly strengthen your case. I will pay close attention to challenges to opponents' arguments and how it is used to strengthen your case.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, argumentation, strategic choices, and overall contribution to the round. Be respectful and professional throughout the debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to fairly and objectively evaluate the arguments presented. I will not inject my personal opinions into the decision-making process. I will assess the round based on what transpires in the debate.

Speed and Delivery:

While I can handle a moderate pace, I value clarity over speed. If your arguments become unclear due to rapid delivery, it may hinder your overall assessment.

Respect and Decorum:

Maintain respect for your opponents, partner, and the judge throughout the round. Be mindful of time limits and follow the established rules. I do not tolerate arguing over each other or unnecessary interjections as it muddles and slows the debate.

Final Thoughts:

Remember, debate is an educational activity, but don't forget to have fun! Embrace the opportunity to learn, grow, and engage with different perspectives. I look forward to a productive and insightful round!

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge that has judged at a few tournaments.

Don't read fast, if I can't understand or don't hear it, I won't evaluate it. 

Make sure to be respectful to your opponents at all times.

Being respectful and persuasive is the best way to win. 

Try to make the vote as easy and clean as possible. Tell me why you have won the round. 

Have fun!

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

Start with the basics -

Stand up!

Look at your judge, not your opponent!

Treat your opponent with respect!

PF: Impacts and weighing!!! Obviously this is pretty standard, if you want to win you need good impacts and you need to weigh them against your opponents. I really appreciate explanation and context, one card which claims to save (insert whatever number) lives is generally not as effective as explaining how the resolution leads to those live being lost (supported with evidence of course). I do my best to only judge based upon what debaters say in round, please identify voter issues and weigh them in speech, don't make me disentangle those at the end.

LD: I first assess the value debate, then I assess which criterion best upholds the winning value. From there I look at which impacts/voter issues apply to the winning criterion and weigh their merit under that criterion. I do my best to base considerations only on what is said by the debaters in round, so make sure that you weigh impacts in your speeches.

Framework - I love the framework debate. In LD framework debate is incredibly important. Direct clash on the criterion or value is best, but even if the framework has been collapsed or agreed to, I need to hear how you are linking into it and outweighing in every speech.

Values: my pet peeve -Why would you include a value in your case if you never say anything about it past constructive? There is plenty of debate to be done on the value level, but it just never seems to happen. If you include a value and it is different from your opponents, argue about it, or concede to theirs and link in, whatever you do don't just forget about it entirely for the rest of the round.

Other Stuff:

Speed - I have never heard a debater on the Minnesota circuit who spoke too fast for me to process. I have heard many debaters who spoke so fast they could no longer enunciate clearly, don't be like them. I will not yell clear or anything like that, if I really can't keep up I will drop my pen.

Progressive stuff - K's, Theory, etc. - I don't know any of this jargon and I generally steer clear of progressive debate. I am happy to vote on anything so long as it makes sense and relates to the debate. If you truly believe in the validity of your K, give it a shot, but make sure to explain it fully and clearly.

Off-time roadmaps: Why? Please don't, just signpost as you speak.

i debated PF for 4 years at eagan high school and graduated in 2020. I've been coaching for PF since then for wayzata high school.

***add me to the email chain! (email chain > doc) feel free to ask me questions before the round or to shoot me an email: shailja.p22@gmail.com

general:

- offtime road map: My biggest pet peeve is when you give me an offtime road map and then don't follow it. keep it short and really I just need to know where you are starting unless you are doing something weird.

- speed: i consider myself a flow judge. tech>truth. a case doc doesn't replace your speech. i can flow pretty fast but don't spread. naturally, the slower you go the more i comprehend. so do with that as you will.

- ks, theory, etc... : I a) i don't have enough experience with these kinds of arguments and thus don't feel comfortable evaluating them and b) think they create a barrier in the debate space.

- framework: this is pretty obvious - if a team gives me a framework I will vote off of that (as long as it makes sense) - if you have a FW and the other team doesn't that doesn't mean you win.

plz do not aggressively post-round me :) ask me questions but don't yell at me - i'm not going to switch my decision

how to win my vote:

- weighing: say the words " we outweigh because..." it makes it easier for me.

- signposting: just do it.

- voters: have them and write the ballot for me.

- evidence: evidence ethics have gotten so bad in debate these days. don't take forever to find evidence (speaks will go down). make sure you have cut cards. do not paraphrase.

- extensions: don't just extend through "ink". don't just say "flow Smith over". explain to me what smith says and why it matters in the context of the round. make sure if you say something final focus it is/actually was in summary and vice-versa. if you are the second speaking team you must respond to offense from 1st rebuttal. defense is not sticky. this is given, but if you want me to vote for it at the end of the round have it in every speech.

- overall, please have fun while still being nice and respectful. no one likes to watch an aggressive debate round.

Hi guys! I was a 4 year PF debater at Millard North. I can understand theory if necessary, but I'm not too well versed so, if you're gonna read it, make sure you explain it very very well. If I don't understand it, I can't weigh it :)

Impact weighing is preferred please and thank you. I don't flow blippy extensions. Don't just "reread your case" in rebuttal, actually do some analysis. Rebuilding in first rebuttal is not necessary, no new args after second summary. Speaking speed is fine, if you're gonna go inhumanly fast, just send me the speech doc (kashish.poore6213@gmail.com) thanks. I don't flow cross, so if you have an important point, bring it up in speech. drop a turn and the arg flows over to the opponent :) so don't do it, just answer the damn thing, or explain why.

If you make me laugh i'll bump up your speaker points by 1-2 depends on how hard.

If you have anything to say after round, email por favor!

I am a 90s graduate of the Grand Rapids Speech and Debate program and a veteran camper at Concordia. I spent nearly a decade under the tutelage of the Notorious Lee Alto coaching and judging for the Grand Rapids Program. After pausing for many years to focus solely on being a mom, I was welcomed back into the community. I am honored to have been a regular judge for Duluth Denfeld for the past few years. I have spent the past few years judging both Congressional and Public Forum Debate.

I am open to listen to any well-developed argument. There's honestly a little bit of each paradigm in my judging persona, although I tend to lean towards policy maker. I weigh advantages, disadvantages, voting issues. Preference on teams doing the weighing for me in their summaries. Any well-developed argument is fair game from topicality to validity of evidence. I don't prefer the absurd game player theories, but I'll listen to anything! I'll vote on analytical arguments if that's what made the most sense in the round.

Weigh the round.

Give me the voters.

Take the control out of my hands.

Give me well developed arguments and analysis.

When judging debate, I want to see that all the opponents are following, and respecting the rules outlined by the National Speech and Debate Association.

Things that are important to me:

• I want there to be respect to the opponents, raising your voice, getting an attitude, or rudely cutting someone off are not things that will be beneficial to your case.
• I want the debate to stay on task, asking questions that take away from the topic of this debate, or starting off with answering the question with something off topic will not benefit you in the end.

• Using any type of derogatory language, this can be the other opponent, or about a group in your debate, it is going to be very hard to allow you to win that round.
• Having credible sources, statistics, and passion for your side of the debate will greatly benefit you in my round.
• Speaking at a speed that is easily understood by myself and your opponent.

Hello, I am Dave and I will be your judge today.

There are some very importnat things that I want to happen in the round, if you do these you will win the ballot.

Please keep the discussion civil. Derogatory comments will negatively impact you.

I am a parent judge and have had 2 years of local tournament judging. Please minimize technical jargon and language. I will best understand your points if they are delivered clearly and at a pace less than light speed. Please warrant your repsonses and explain your cards. Finally, I appreciate clear thinking and logical responses as much as facts, data, and cards.

Enjoy the round!

Looking for logic. Your argument can be non-conventional but has to be logical. Also I would give you points if you can found the logic weakness of your opponent and attack right at them. Will consider talking styles and prefer calm and reasonable over too much passion, but to a lesser degree than the first one.

Speed is fine (but must be crystal clear for high speaks), jargon is fine. Whatever you put on the flow I will evaluate but prefer evidence to analytics.

I have judged for 10+years on the local Minnesota circuit and competed in LD before that. My knowledge of specific higher level national circuit strategies is limited as I haven't judged many national circuit rounds but I am confident that I can follow as long as you keep the round clear.

Please add me to any email chains: alsmit6512@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Hi.

I was a PF debater for 3 years at Millard North.

A lot of my debate experience is in the realm of PF. With that being said, I will still be able to understand most of the arguments. I will do my best to be technical in round. With that being said, it would still be in your best interest to think of me as a lay judge and debate accordingly due to my lack of LD experience. I am fine with speed but make sure that you're respectful and articulate. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me during the round. I will do my best to give adequate feedback but understand that I haven't had much LD experience. It would be a very bad idea to run Kritiks, theory, underviews, and spikes as I will likely not vote off these as I do not understand them.

Hi, my name is Minfen, I won’t understand too much jargon and please go slow. I hope you have a good time! Thanks!

Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have before and/or after the round :)

Experience:

I debated PF in high school and was a Policy debater at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. I have been judging and coaching debate for a while, and currently coach at St. Paul Academy.

Public Forum Paradigm:

My paradigm isn't anything ground breaking (I mainly like to see debaters have fun and try their best), but here are a few guidelines:

- I love it when teams have a thesis and consistent story that they link back to and articulate throughout the round: what do we get out of a vote for the Aff? For the Neg?

- Speed: I don't care for speed in PF - it typically results in unclear speaking and blippy arguments, which are both bad.

- Links are very important. If you try to gain access to an impact, but lack strong links, it is very hard to vote for you. If you and your opponent have arguments with direct clash, comparing the links/warrants is the best way to come out ahead.

- Both teams will have impacts. If you want me to vote for you, weigh your arguments!!

- Smart analytics can beat cards.

- Jargon is not a substitute for making a complete argument.

- "Off-time road maps" are unnecessary in pf. I should be able to tell what you are talking about during your speech.

- CX: I like cx and think its underutilized in pf! I appreciate when debaters ask good questions and set up the arguments they are going to make, and especially like it when good points made in cx are applied/referenced in speeches.

- Framework: Make sure you address it if it comes up, and make sure you explain it if you are running it. Often times in PF, the proposed framework is actually more of a weighing mechanism and works fine for both teams, so it's okay to agree to it. Other times, framework is used as a cheap way to gain an unwarranted advantage, which should be called out.

- Extension: Complete extension requires warranted explanation of an argument, not just author names.

- Final Focus: Your final focus should basically write my ballot for me - tell me what I am voting on and why. If it doesn't show up in the summary, I am not going to weigh it in the final focus.

- Calling for evidence: First, consider whether whatever you are hoping to gain from calling for a card can be resolved with a good crossx question (i.e. do you really need to call the card?). If you do call a card, know exactly what you are asking for and ask for it right after the speech or at the top of CX so that the partner not participating in CX can pull the ev (i.e. don't waste time/use card requests as a way to steal prep). Lastly - I find it weird when people call for cards and then don't bring it up in their speeches - what was the point? TLDR: Be efficient, ethical, and smart about calling for cards.

In conclusion:

Please make complete, intelligent arguments. Please be respectful. Please remember to have fun!!!

************************************

Policy Paradigm:

Add me to the chain! welbo009@umn.edu

Clarity is important. I tend to do better at flowing slower teams, but only because most super-fast teams are v unclear. I don't want to have to look at the docs to understand what's going on. I won't say "clear" - if I'm not flowing, its a pretty good indicator that I can't understand you.

Ev quality and highlighting are important (I will check specific ev if I think it is important to the round or if you tell me to, but ev comparison should be done by debaters in round - I want to avoid judge intervention).

Impact calc is important. I do not think you have to have an extinction impact to win the round, but answer them if you are going for something else.

I'm open to pretty much any type argument, but I don't like when arguments are presented in such a way that only a subject matter expert/someone deep in the lit can understand it.

Smart analytics can beat cards.

In conclusion:

Please make complete, intelligent arguments. Please be respectful. Please remember to have fun!!!

Experience

One year of policy, three years of public forum as a debater. This will be my eighth year as a judge, mainly for public forum.

Definitions/Framework

Don't take too long here outside of your case, unless the resolution deems it necessary. For a straightforward resolution, a framework will not have a significant impact on how I judge a round. I'll listen, but it is very rare that the framework will win you the round by itself. Same with definitions. Unless the resolution is vague and definitions are required, they won't have much effect on the round.

Argumentation

Case Speakers - Not much to say about a pre-written speech except to use all of your time and read through your speech enough times that my round doesn't sound like the first time you are seeing the case.

Rebuttal - First, don't restate your case. Your partner just read it, I don't need to hear it again. Second, make sure to signpost. I can usually follow where your arguments should go, but the more I'm focusing on where to flow your point, the less I'm focusing on the actual point.

Crossfire - Similar to the framework, a round usually isn't won or lost in crossfire. I typically use this time to take a break from flowing and begin to process the various points that have been made in the round. Questions posed by debaters can help clarify points, but don't often turn things around too much. However, if you do discover something big that could change the course of the round, make sure to follow it up in your next speeches. As I rarely flow crossfire, a significant point could be lost if not expanded upon later. Be polite to one another, don't interrupt your opponents and try to ask more in depth questions than "What was your first point?".

Summary/Final Focus - Start to condense the round into the main points that you think will be the most important. I will flow either way, but if one team starts to focus on the main voters while the other just gives a second rebuttal speech, weighing the round can be a little difficult. Be specific in your main voters. Tell me which points are important, why they are more important than your opponents, and how much weight I should give them.

Delivery

Speed - With my one year of policy and relatively young ears, speed isn't too much of an issue. I can still flow just about anything, but I do recommend that you slow down a hair when reading your points and subpoints. My shorthand does get shorter the faster you go, so the likelihood that I can't read my flow or miss a key factor of your point goes up as speed increases. Similarly, don't attempt speed just to throw more arguments at the wall to see what sticks. I prefer good points versus a deluge that allows you to say "my opponent didn't respond to ___" at the end of the round.

Additional Notes

Public Forum is not Policy. - I don't want to hear K's or DA's, and depending on the resolution, teams need to be very careful that the case they are presenting does not fall into the realm of plan/counterplan. The only holdover I will take from policy is topicality. If a case very blatantly does not comply with the resolution, I will hear the argument and weigh it accordingly. However, be warned. If it is not obviously outside of the confines of the resolution and you are trying to pull one over on me for a quick win, it implies that you do not have enough legitimate arguments to defeat their case.

Be Professional - This just kind of applies in general. I have yet to personally decide a round based on a debater's attitude or how they treated their opponents, and as long as both sides exude proper decorum, I hope I won't have to.

Timer - For a speech, when the timer goes off, I will listen to the end of a sentence, but will stop listening and will not flow whatever comes next. During crossfire, if the timer goes off during a question, I will allow the opponent to answer the question, but there will be no follow-up and crossfire is over as soon as the answer has concluded.

Roadmaps - I'm fine with roadmaps if they are necessary. But if your roadmap is "I'm going to go down our flow and then down my opponent's flow', no need to make a big deal out of it.

Questions

Feel free to email me at wilsontj@sio.midco.net before or after the round if you have any questions.

Personal Information:

probably will not be judging anytime soon, and i'm updating this paradigm simply because tabroom made me. and if i am it's prob gonna be novices (if in policy) bc i'm very out of practice.

i debated in high school policy.

Email: awyang2951@gmail.com

.

.

.

POLICY

______

TL/DR

I'm mostly tabula rasa (I try my best); just don't make any offensive arguments. I am probably (unintentionally, I'm sorry!) predisposed to policy-like arguments, such as framework against the kritik. BTW I have VERY limited topic knowledge, so be aware of acronyms or anything hyper-specific to the topic, especially T definitions.

I've also very unfortunately had to judge more PF tournaments than policy ones, so be patient with me about this topic.

.

.

Specific stuff:

Aff: By the 2AR, you better have a cohesive, comprehensible story of what your affirmative does and what it is. Including K affs. However, if your entire story was explained in the 2AR and not before that, and it's difficult for me and/or the other team to understand you, the threshold for winning is very high.

DAs: I like disads, and most of my neg rounds I've gone for one with a CP. Ptx and specific topic disads are probably very good ways to gain education about intricacies of the topic and nuances of policy. The neg should also have a cohesive story on what causes the disad to happen and what impact this leads to.

CPs: CPs are pretty cool. I like them. Even some of the trashiest disads become viable 2NRs combined with a good CP that solves. They obviously need to be competitive and NOT link to the net benefit. Also, theory can be a reason to reject the CP. Agent, Process, States etc. can be reasons to reject the CP. Judge kick? Meh. I'll decide depending on the round. Condo is usually the only reason to reject the team even if the CP is kicked.

Ks: I'm probably unfamiliar with most of the literature so you'll have to explain it thoroughly. Framework is very important and I'm most likely subconsciously aff-biased on the issue. Otherwise, really weigh the impact of the kritik against the impact of the affirmative. You also don't necessarily need an alternative to win, case turns and/or root cause arguments might be sufficient to win my ballot.

T: T is about two competing models of what debate for the year should look like. That being said, I have no idea of anything on this topic, so please explain your stuff. Talk about whose model is better for the year, (limits and ground, education and fairness, etc.) and whether the affirmative meets either interpretation. T is a gateway issue and I won't be persuaded to weigh the aff's impact before it.

.

.

Speaker Points (this stuff is basically all for novices. for jv and varsity, i'm same as p much everyone else):

A 28.4 should be average. If you're good, I'll make them higher, obviously.

A 26 is if you are mean. Like, substantially mean. Yelling at the other team. Or stealing prep. Or saying something offensive.

A 30 if you would have been able to beat my partner and me our senior year.

For novices, a 28.8 or above is only possible:

1. If you are actually a novice that DOES A LINE-BY-LINE. please. do a line-by-line. it makes my flow prettier.

2. If you are a novice team that ACTUALLY SPLITS THE BLOCK. I HATE when the 2NC just takes everything and the 1NR just repeats it. It just ruins my otherwise really pretty flow.

3. If you are nice to the other team and have tag team be REASONABLE.

4. If you FLOW IN PEN - flowing in pencils or worse, COLORED PENCILS, should literally be BANNED from debate

5. If you don't extend 5 off in the 2NR - please just go for one thing... for your own benefit?

A 29 if I feel like you are REALLY REALLY good.

A 29.5 if I feel like you should be in JV.

.

.

.

PF

__

TL/DR

I'm a policy judge so I may weigh things a bit differently compared to a typical PF judge. Weigh your impacts and actually answer the opponents' arguments; don't just use broad, sweeping claims with nothing to back it up.

Long Version

Again, I was in policy, so I will probably judge your round with a policy perspective (whether subconsciously or not), in that:

1. I don't really accept impacts that are not really impacts. I am not convinced econ growth in and of itself is a good thing, for example (the exception is climate change. I think that you can just say "climate change" without listing potential disasters, as the negative effects of climate change are implicitly obvious). However, I will be very easy to convince that this impact leads to some terminal impact: increasing the job market as a result of econ growth can inherently be a good thing (unless the other side convinces me that the jobs are exploitative or something).

2. I'll, in a round, consider nuke war and other extinction impacts likelier than they actually are (in reality). As long as you win an internal link chain, you're good.

I have judged too many rounds in which PF debaters just read and say things at each other instead of actually clashing. It makes my job incredibly difficult because I might as well flip a coin at the end of the round to determine who wins, as I have two (or worse, >2) completely competing versions of what reality is/should be and no reason to prefer either of them. Do impact calculus and ENGAGE with the other team's arguments, PLEASE.

Speaks

I've heard that a 27.5 is average. So that is your baseline.

Hi! I can only flow so fast, so speak at a reasonable speed. The easiest way to get me to vote for you is with well-explained arguments(tell me the warrant + impact) that are carried through the round.

Pls be ethical with evidence

I like debates with lots of direct clash - be responsive :)

Don’t be rude