Tabroom.com

ERHS Raptor Invitational Palooza

2021 — Online, MN/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tanvi Adige Rosemount Sr High School

Jane Ahmann East Ridge High School 8 rounds

Sam Anderson Eagan High School

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 2:58 AM CDT

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

Background

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

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

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

Counterplans

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

Theory

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

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

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Non-negotiables

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

Traditional LD Paradigm

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

Joseph Annareddy Edina High School

Sarah Aspelin Chaska High School

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

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

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

TLDR: flay, be nice, have fun!!

yall take notes when i give feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

general substantive preferences:

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

speaker points

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

nat circ

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

evidence standards

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

public forum

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

congress

overall:

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

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

Speeches:

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

POs:

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

Sonal Batra Livingston High School

Last changed on Sat September 10, 2022 at 4:26 AM EDT

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you. It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

Simon Beach Moorhead High School None

Lyra Bersie Edina High School None

Katherine Bleth Rosemount Sr High School

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 10:01 AM CDT

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
@ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

John Boals Lakeville

Bonnie Brynteson Robbinsdale Cooper High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 4:56 AM CDT

Last Updated:3/9/2024

Pronouns: They/Them

Background:

Competed for 6 years: 4.5 in LD and 1.5 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 3 years now.

Overview:

Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you.
If you have questions about your ballot, feel free to ask me about it! My email address isBonBrynteson@gmail.com :)

Congress:

This is a debate event. I reward debaters on their skill to rebuttal and crystal first and then constructives/authors. This is not to say I will not rank someone high if they give constructives but I do tend to vote for people who can mix it up and give different types of speeches/can analyze the round correctly.
There should be no reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I promise you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for what you need to personally work on in this activity.
I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. The topics we are discussing may personally impact the people in the room with you. Be aware of what you are saying and the impact it can leave on others when leaving the round.

Notes for PO's:

You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform. The reasoning for this is there are some POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position.
I personally do not like it when you share your PO sheet with the chamber. It is their job to also track, don't make their life easier. This is a competition.
Please do not tell us to rank you. We are told to in judging meetings and TAB reminds us every round.
The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you", "and we will never know the answer to that question" or any other sentence that is unneeded will poorly look on you in my eyes. You should be moving so efficiently that you can move speech to questioning to speech within seconds. In addition, the chair does not have emotions.
I know this Paradigm is long and seems like a lot but please do not be scared to ask me questions! I have POed more times than I can count and it's nerve-racking. Let me help you succeed and grow so we can have a fun fast round.

LD:

If you start running a K, I will just want to run back to my congress land. Please do not run them in my round.
Please do not spread. I can not keep up and will be lost.
I do not mind jargon or technical language but if you are being inaccessible to your opponent that is unfair to them and will reflect on you.
Voters/Framework/Weighing are big points to me. If you weigh but lost framework, what are we actually weighing on? If you save more money but your opponents saves 100k lives, why do I care about someone missing rent for a month? Etc etc
I love love love! a good CX

Overall I just want you kids to have fun. Let's work together to create a safe space in this round where everyone feels comfortable and enjoy the round! :D

Priscilla Bunday Minnetonka High School

Tejesh Cheepuru Eden Prairie High School None

Ashley Chen Eagan High School

Tom Cogswell St. Croix Prep None

Nishita Das Eden Prairie High School None

Danial Davis St. Croix Prep

Last changed on Wed August 24, 2022 at 6:23 AM CDT

Danial Zane Davis:

Title & Experience:

Professional Development Specialist, Ewald Consulting, Saint Paul, MN.

Former Assistant Director of Speech & Debate & 7th Grade Logic & Language Arts Teacher, St. Croix Preparatory Academy (PREP), Stillwater, MN.

More than a decade coaching and judging Lincoln-Douglas and Policy (CX) at MN Speech & Debate Tournaments.

In high school in Nebraska, four years of (mostly Congress) debate alongside four years of forensics, especially extemporaneous and informative.

Background:

I'm an educator who has worked with middle school, high school, and adult learners in charter schools, public schools, and the private sector. My undergraduate education focused on literature, linguistics, philosophy, and history, while my Master's work is in education and natural and environmental sciences. Arguments that apply philosophy vaguely or incorrectly, arguments that abuse linguistics to make distinctions without meaningful differences, and arguments based on poorly understood or absent literary, historical, and/or scientific evidence will fall under the lightest scrutiny by your opponent. On the other hand, arguments that demonstrate sound philosophy, employ language meaningfully, and feature accurate or insightful references to literature, history, and/or scientific evidence will help you.

Style and rules:

I will say “clear” if a debater is incomprehensible. If I say "clear" twice, and the debater does not attempt to slow down or enunciate, I will stop flowing the speech. This automatically results in that debater losing the round. I can handle a reasonably fast debate comfortably, but I prefer L-D to be conducted at a conversational pace.

I prefer debates to be amicable intellectual competitions, so I don’t generally appreciate abusive behavior in rounds. However, I don’t mind emotional intensity, provided it subsides when the round concludes. I also welcome reasonable humor where appropriate.

I expect debaters to engage with their opponent’s arguments (read: clash), not merely to read blocks at each other. Thus, I do not appreciate attempts to win by "spreading" as many arguments as possible, hoping to overwhelm one's opponent with quantity instead of quality. This is a habit of poor CX debaters that occasionally rears its ugly head in L-D.

I am a flow judge, and I want to hear actual arguments, not buzzwords or empty tags. Don’t just say “extend my __ card.” Remind me what the card states. Don’t expect that I will fill-in the blank. Making and clarifying arguments is your job, not mine.

LD Judging Paradigm:

In short, I will hear any reasonable argument if you understand what you are reading and run it well across the flow. Make sure you read my "Background" paragraph if you want clarification on what "understand what you are reading" and "run it well" means.

Your value-premise is important. If you and your opponent have different, competing values, don’t automatically declare your values equal or identical and move-on. To weigh two competing value premises, I usually make a comparison between the achievement of similar positions.

The value-criterion is the vital weighing mechanism that allows me to see whether or not your contention-level arguments achieve your value-premise. With this in mind, I don’t like the trend of just running a "Standard" (that has infiltrated L-D from CX). While reasonable in theory, the practice usually leads debaters to have a value-premise without a concrete weighing mechanism--making it difficult to judge whether they achieves their own burden--or a weighing mechanism with no end goal--making even successful arguments lack a higher purpose, which seems contrary to the intellectual, philosophical, or moral duty implied by “ought” or “should” in an L-D resolution.

When determining the winner of a round, I will first judge if each debater has successfully addressed all of their opponent’s key arguments. This is not to say that I will vote against you if you drop an ancillary point in the 2AR. However, if you are deliberately dropping a significant argument, you should clearly explain why you are doing so, and you should ground your reasoning in sound evidence, philosophy, or theory. Further, if you want me to know that an argument is essential, you should highlight it via specific voting issues in the 2NR/AR.

If all arguments relevant to the round have been adequately addressed (or equally inadequately addressed), I will next examine whether each debater has successfully met their own burden. If you connect your framework with your contention-level arguments through explicit warrants and continue to make these connections clear across the flow, you are likely to win against an opponent who does not. If both debaters have done this (or both have equally failed), I will compare worlds to make my decision. I am open to debates concerning the role of the ballot, but if such a debate is absent, I will default to the above process.

If you intend to run a Plan or Counterplan, I expect you to explicitly link it to the Resolution and to ground it in a nuanced Value/Criterion Framework. Plans originated in CX, which places far less emphasis on the Value debate. While I am familiar with CX, it is distinct from L-D and for important reasons I don't need to enumerate here. Suffice to say, if you intend to use any CX-style argument in an L-D round, you must adapt it for the unique requirements of L-D.

I love a well-run K, as a good Kritik is rooted in a strong philosophical framework. Please note the qualifiers, “good,” “well-run,” and “strong philosophical framework.” For any additional clarification, see my "Background" paragraph. K’s can be permuted, but I need clear warrants as to why.

If you run T, it should be because something really isn't resolutional. Topicality is another CX argument that needs to be adapted for reasonable use in L-D.

I prefer that debates focus on the Resolution, but I will try to evaluate theory debates fairly. To be clear, however, my understanding of debate theory is basic, especially compared with TOC judges. (I have neither participated in nor coached TOC style L-D.) If the round comes down to a theory debate, it is the burden of the 2NR and the 2AR to make sure the theory arguments and the implications thereof are absolutely clear.

I don’t like to examine evidence after a round, but I have and I will if I think the in-round analysis of the evidence is inconclusive. I reserve the right to read whatever part(s) of the evidence I think are necessary to determine if it is taken out of context or interpreted badly enough to alter its meaning. I will hear challenges to the validity of evidence, but if a debater challenges the methodology of their opponent, they need to have their own methodology available for examination as well. If this is not the case, I will dismiss such a challenge.

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

Policy (CX) Paradigm:

Evidence:

Evidence is only one part of a debate. 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 will not vote 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, don’t misrepresent your evidence or make it sound “bigger” than it really is.

Another area I think is important is the "citation debate." I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. 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.

I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. 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. 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).

Speed:

When you are speaking at 300+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which leads to miscommunications later in the extension debate. To resolve this issue, articulate and speak slower in your presentation of signposts, claims, and citations. This shouldn't slow down your overall presentation by much, but it should make those “flow-able” points clearer. Additionally, I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't articulating, and if you continue to speak too fast, I'll just stop flowing. If you see this, you will probably lose the round, so make a conscious effort to accommodate my speed preference for the signposts, tags, and author last names at least. An optimal speed in these areas is around 200-250 wpm.

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). The most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture. Additionally, a big picture debate may be able to shore up some of the back-and-forth that takes place in the line-by-line debate, so if a debater doesn't directly respond to the Contention One, Subpoint A, little three, they can still show offense with a big picture/overview analysis of the entire subpoint or contention. However, as previously mentioned, if you drop case entirely, you need to have a really strong (Kritikal) reason for doing so (and even then links should include some direct references to case).

Preferences:

While I believe 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. I 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 at hand, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution.

My favorite debates are debates that are directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I love critical, topical Affs). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

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. 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. 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.

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

Ron Davis St Michael Albertville High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phuong Doan Blaine

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 3:02 AM CDT

Updated: 12/9/2023

Hello! I'm a sophomore at college. I debated for four years in Minnesota and now do APDA in college. I mainly did LD, but know a bit about PF and Congress. I've only done traditional debate, but I have some baseline knowledge of some circuit-level arguments like kritiks and theory (more on that later). I qualified and competed in the State tournament three times in LD, so I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable about Debate. Glad you are reading this since most don't.

TL;DR:

Be nice; don't run stupid and random circuit arguments unless you can explain them well; weigh your arguments; don't lie in the last speech; don't use problematic arguments; I prefer cameras on but I won't really care; don't expect me to know exactly where Fuentes, 2018 is without telling me where it is; and please signpost.

General:

Don't purposely be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, or any other thing. Just. Don't. If you are, don't expect to win. Expect an L20 :)

Don't be passive-aggressive or belittle your opponent. This is all for fun and you shouldn't bully people because you know more about China than them. If you do, expect very low speaks. Maybe even a loss.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

You should be aware of who you are in the Debate space. Sure, in a round, you truly have no identity (you are just a debater who is trying to convince me you're right), but there's something strange about a white man using eco-fem or Black Anger. While I believe that you should be allowed to use arguments that don't pertain to you (for example, me, an Asian guy, talking about how something might perpetuate misogyny), I ask that you first try to reevaluate why you are using those arguments. Are you using them because you believe it or because it will grant you more bodies on the flow? If it's the latter, maybe rethink it.

I won't drop you because you used an argument that doesn't pertain to you at all, but it's something to recognize. A good question to ask yourself is if you would be comfortable making these arguments in a room where a person from that group is in. For example, if you are using an argument about Asian-Americans, would you still say it if an Asian-American was in the room? If not, you probably shouldn't make it at all.

Again, I won't ever hold it against you. I think that would be silly if I'm allowed to gatekeep arguments from you just because of who you are. But this is just a PSA for life in general.

Allowable arguments:

I'll vote on almost anything (except bigotry): even extinction and "death good" arguments. Be warned that certain arguments are much harder to prove. This means that I'm generally tech over truth.

Please please please have a trigger warning for anything that may trigger people (things like sexual assault, suicide, etc.). Especially if you use arguments that are descriptive of those triggering arguments. If you are using descriptive mentions of something that can be triggering, ask yourself if that is really necessary. There's no reason why you can't just mention their existence and still use them. Trust me, your argument doesn't become weaker because it's a non-descriptive mention of them.

Regarding Kritiks: as I said, I only did Trad debate, but I know what a K is and how it works. So do explain things to me very clearly if you use some weird literature for your K. If you hate that, sorry not sorry.

In terms of Theory: I am going to have a pretty high bar for a "drop the debater" voter. I'm also not going to weigh any frivolous T that is just... stupid. Sorry for the judge intervention but idc if you argue very well that I should vote for the shorter debater to stop height discrimination. Or something like first, last three words or whatever. Please stop.

Speeches and Rebuttals:

Please signpost. I'm not a mind reader; I can't magically tell where you are on the flow. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it. If I can't flow it, I can't give you that argument. If I can't give you that argument, I can't give you the win. If you use multiple arguments against something, number them. So don't get mad if you see a ballot that isn't in your favor because I didn't catch your third response to their fifth response in your first subpoint in your second contention that was about somelastnameyouspedthroughandididnotcatch, 2014.

Please address the fact that your opponent dropped your argument. If you drop the dropped argument, you don't get the point. Mention your opponent dropped something and extend it and say why that drop is important. For example, if the AFF dropped the NEG's contention two, then in the next speech say they did and explain why it's important.

Please weigh your arguments. I shouldn't (and won't) have to weigh them myself. Weighing them for me gives a clear reason to vote for you since you explain why your arguments are more important. If you forgot, the main weighing metrics are magnitude, probability, timeframe, and scope.

Don't lie in the very last speech. I get that if you're losing you have to say something like "I outweigh on this" even though you didn't. Who knows, maybe your last speech will persuade me to vote for you. What I mean by lying is saying something like, "My opponent dropped this" when they did not drop that. It's frustrating when something like this happens especially in front of a parent judge since you can't correct them. You'll lose speaks if you lie on purpose.

If you run out of time during a speech, finish your last thought. If you keep going, I will stop you.

Cross:

If time runs out during cross, I'll allow the person to answer the last question that was just asked.

This isn't a shouting competition: don't try to one-up your opponent.

Please answer the questions that are being asked to you. Being shady isn't a good strategy. Please stop if they ask you to stop.

Cross is binding, y'all.

I don't necessarily flow cross, but I am listening.

Specifically about crossfire in PF: I am really hating the using cross as a time to badger each other. PLEASE stick to asking questions. This isn't another rebuttal. Calm down. I have (and will) dock speaks because of the absolutely rude and terrible behavior I've seen during crossfires.

Speaking:

If you're gonna talk fast, only talk fast through your evidence. Please slow down while signposting or reading any tags or card names. Maybe even take a break after you say a tag, so I can flow it.

What really annoys me is when people just address something by card name especially if that card is the only one under a contention. Just mention the contention at that point. I get that you have to address it by card name sometimes but please tell me where it is. Sometimes I don't catch the author. Instead of saying "Johnson 20," say "Johnson 20: second card under my contention one." Remember, if you are just saying something and I have no idea where it is on the flow, don't be surprised you lost even though you extended that one magic card when I have no clue where it is or what it says.

I start my speaks at 27 and go up or down based on how well you are speaking and articulating your arguments.

In general for how I evaluate speaks, I consider how poised you are in your speaking (are you speaking with clarity, precision, being efficient with your sentences), how good you are at articulating your arguments, and how you are able to navigate and link between arguments. There's no formula for this.

Online Etiquette:

I prefer cameras on but I don't really care. I understand sometimes cameras just aren't feasible for a lot of reasons. Online debate makes it so much harder to hear so if you're talking fast, speak very clearly and slow down for tags. Covid really did a number on Debate etiquette and it surprises me so much. Just don't be eating or something. It's more important than in-person debates that you ask if everyone is ready.

Pet Peeves:

Don't say, "I win because..." or "you have to vote neg because..." No, I don't have to vote for you. That is my decision.

If you are using Kant, you should not care about consequences. If you care about consequences, you are using it wrong. I'll still consider your framework as is, but I will not be happy.

Please ask if everyone is ready.

Sorry that this is long. Have any questions? Ask me before the round, and I will answer them.

For circuits that use email chains: phuong.doan7114@gmail.com. I probs won't look at it unless someone points out something sketchy or something. I just expect y'all to speak in a way that I can flow without me reading it. Otherwise, what's the point in speaking? I also think Debaters have the burden to tell me why a piece of evidence is good or bad. I'm not doing that for y'all.

John Dorfner Simley High School None

Adam Erickson Lakeville

Darcy Erickson St. Croix Prep

Sarah Etheridge Chaska High School None

Nora Flaherty St. Croix Prep None

Noah Gallagher Lakeville

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:42 AM CDT

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2024 MN Sections/State:

-For speed: I can flow the high end of rapid conversational pace and the lower end of true spreading. If you are double clutching while spreading, that is likely too fast. I will give verbal "Slow" or "Clear" instructions if needed.

-I'll vote on pretty much any argument (but tricks might not be arguments).

-Signpost Signpost Signpost. I prefer "Contention x, subpoint x" or other language that describes where in the case I should be looking over the use of only card names when extending arguments.

-Engaging in warrant comparison, describing your argument in straightforward terms, and doing specific weighing between impacts makes me happy. Quality over quantity for warrants. Write my ballot for me and you will get good speaks.

-If you are running non-traditional arguments, please read this

Distinct offs are highly preferred to "layified" cases where C1 is a DA and C2 is a CP ect.
I hold the debater that introduces the non-traditional argument to a higher standard of structure. (i.e. if you read a K, I expect labeled FW, alt, ect. but your opponent can read competition args and I will treat those as perms even if they don't say the word "perm").
Overall higher bar if you are reading circuit args into a traditional debater. I think theory, counterplans, and Kritiques are good for debate, but when those strategies are used to confuse and exclude your opponent that makes me sad. Don't be evasive in CX about how arguments function, and I require a more explicit delineation of why pre-fiat arguments come first in order to vote on them. The brightline will be if a typical JV debater who has never seen your argument couldn't follow why your uplayer comes first, you didn't explain it enough.

Who am I:

I'm a debater who graduated in 2018 and got a whopping total of 0 bids and competed in 0 bid rounds. I still enjoyed circuit debate, but this means I am probably not the best judge for late outrounds. Graduated from Lakeville North High School with 4 years of LD and did four years of Parli at the University of Minnesota. That most recent Parli experience shapes a lot of what I think about debate. The other important disclosure is I do not keep up with the circuit generally so I am not going to be as up on the current LD meta.

Things I like:

Engagement! I'm going to like rebuttals that don't just sail past the prior speech based on some prewritten frontlines, but instead address the core issues that the other side brings up.

Respect also goes a long way. Debate is an important space and when people act in good faith it makes me happy.

Analytic extensions. I debated in Parli where carded evidence isn't a thing, I find it much easier to follow a straightforward couple sentence explanation than words cut from different parts of a paper where they might not reach the same conclusion that the powertag on top of the card would suggest they do.

Things I don't like:

Being deliberately difficult to engage with. Dodging CX questions with vague answers when in the next speech you all of a sudden can articulate the thesis of your arguments in very concise and definitive language is not debating, it's running from engagement (and cowardice is a voting issue). Don't rely on your opponent not understanding your arguments well enough so you win.

Relying on the speech doc to get arguments across. My personal belief is that the speech doc is to make sure you don't clip cards and give the judge and opponent something to look back on as a record of what was said, but I see it be used more and more as something that lets debaters artificially inflate their WPM by decreasing the clarity by which they speak and letting the doc pick up the slack. The doc doesn't argue, you do.

Specific arguments:

These are all just preferences. I think saying "I'm Tab" doesn't mean anything, but I will try to intervene as little as possible. That being said here are some mindsets I have coming into the round. Unless otherwise noted I can and will vote on any argument presented, some bars just might be higher than others.

LARPing - This is how I debated most of the time, so I like to see it done well, and a CP 2DA neg strat is always fun to watch.

Tricks - If you rely on aprioris or weirdly worded spike that are extended as game over issues I'm probably not your judge. I won't reject you on face but my interp of the burden of rejoinder (the thing that makes dropped args true) is that if the first reading of an argument was shifty or arbitrary, even if none of that argument was addressed in the following speech by your opponent, a new characterization or explanation of that argument is just that: new. This means I am significantly more lenient to responses to blips that get blown up. However, if these arguments are clearly labeled as voting issues the first speech that they are read then a lot of my reservations about this style of debate are alleviated. This goes back to prior notes about avoiding engagement.

Phil - Label everything. I probably don't understand Kant or whoever as well as you do so implicating the important parts of the case as soon as possible make it a lot easier for me to track. I think well done phil can be leveraged well against anything but making these arguments as clear as possible helps me a lot. I think phil is often used by tricky debaters so see above to make sure I don't get sad with you.

Ks - Ks are cool! I didn't read a lot of them in high school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them in front of me. What is does mean is that I don't know the lit and buzzwords are useless. I am familiar with some Cap, Ableism, Anti-blackness, Setcol and Neocol lit bases (in that order) but mostly in a conceptual level not a "I've read the book" level. I know some surface level info about a tiny bit of pomo things, but that please do not assume I know what your buzzwords mean. To make me love you and your K, explain it to me in simple, concise terms. I would prefer a paragraph analytic tag about what it means to find lines of flight than a D&G card cut in language I don't understand. This also applies to alts, I'd really like to know what the alt does. If it's a mindset shift, cool let me know. If it's micropol rejection, cool tell me that's what it is. I think the best alts also incorporate post fiat offense i.e read "Endorse Violent Socialist Revolution" in front of me instead of "Interrogate the epistemology of the aff through a lens of historical materialism."

Role of the Ballots- I find it really hard to frame any offense out of the debate. I default to "Vote for who did the better debating. Everything else is just impact weighing." That being said, if you are winning reasons why your role of the ballot is good it make it a lot easier for your impacts to outweigh those of your opponents, but I don't think it moots them entirely absent arguments that the impacts for their RoB don't matter (i.e. conceded fiat illusory claims means without arguments about how fiated impacts have importance outside of the imaginary will let me completely ignore the extinction claims of an aff)

Theory - Multiple frivolous theories are not good, you can read your spec args or whatever theory shell that might be strategic but probably doesn't actually impact the meta model of debate but reading more than one of these just seems like you are reading a lot of low risk uplayering offence that skirts clash in favor of dropped tidbits. I default to Competing Interps, Theory is top layer, no RVIs but my bar for aff getting RVIs is much lower than neg getting RVIs. Condo is on a round per round basis, but multiple condo are probably not the best, PICs can be good or bad, spec is boring.

Non-Topical/K Affs - I used to absolutely hate these, but I most certainly do not now. I think they are a good part of debate and allow people to take back power, so I will absolutely vote for a non-topical aff but see my notes on Ks and K lit. If you happen to be debating an affirmative that is not topical, FW will work if you win it even if I'm not happy that you read it, but if the aff is disclosed please at least answer some of case. That being said I don't think theory is inherently violent and that means there are smarter interps that don't have to indite the ability of these types of affs to exist in debate but can challenge the specific implementation of a given non-t aff. I.e. must defend fiat but not necessarily resolutional fiat, may not garner offense off a rejection of the resolution (but can off non resolutional things), no Utopian fiat ect. I would also recommend counter methods (and I am a bit partial to the argument that there are no perms in a methods debate) or method piks as long as you actually engage in questions of the affirmative I will probably be happy.

Misc:

Speed - I can listen to you if you are clear. I'd put myself at about 6/10 of top speed, but this being said be careful with blippy args. Not only would I rather hear 2 actually warranted case turns, I probably will not flow half of your twelve point case dump if each of the twelve are only one sentence answers.

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

1. Know what you are talking about. Being well versed in the lit is a great way to make me like you.

2. Jokes. Tournaments are long and can get boring so if I laugh that is a good thing.

3. Be nice.

4. Be organized, if you are all over the place that is a bad thing

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

Shipra Garg Eden Prairie High School

Liz Haen Mahtomedi 8 rounds

Melissa Hagberg Blaine None

Tai Henrichs Apple Valley High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 30, 2021 at 5:22 AM CDT

Hi, I am a junior at Williams College studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I currently debate APDA and debated LD for three years on the local and national circuit, with one career bid (i.e. I was decent but not great at circuit LD). My general paradigm is explained below, but there are some exceptions to it for novice rounds.

General:

Online Debate!

Blatantly stolen (with mild modification) from Evan Engel's paradigm:

***Online Debate***

Here is the procedure I will follow if a student drops off a call, or I drop off a call: students are expected to maintain local recordings of their speeches - if they drop off, they should complete the speech and immediately email their recording upon completing it. I will not allow students to restart speeches / attempt to figure out how much time they had left, particularly in elimination rounds.
If someone drops off a call, please do not steal prep time
It will make the round easier for all of us if you figure out a way to be able to see both me and your opponent on screen - non-verbal communication is really helpful for e-debate working at its best, and if we both nod at "everyone ready," you need to be able to see that, not just be waiting on us to un-mute ourselves and speak up! if you do not hear from me or see me indicate I am ready in some form, you should not assume I am ready. One thing I think this means is that "is anyone not ready" is no longer the right question to ask - "is everyone ready" is gonna be key to ensure no one misses anything.
Slow down. I think online you should be going at 70% or so of the speed you would go in person. If you do not slow down and technical difficulties mean I miss arguments, I will not be very sympathetic to the post round - You may be unable to hear me saying slow bc of the way zoom handles microphones - I am sorry if you do not hear me say "slow", but I cannot emphasize enough the need for you to slow down.
You should have an email chain - if you are flight b, the chain should be set up before you hop on the call if possible.

Topic Knowledge Note

-I know your is topic is "A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike." I have not researched it, but I basically understand its meaning and probably the associated stock arguments. Adapt how you will.

How Tab am I? / the tldr; on what I'll buy

-I'm pretty tabula rasa. Just don't be offensive, please. That is, don't demean your opponent or advocate for arguments with clearly repugnant conclusions. Genocide good is unacceptable, but extinction good is acceptable - the latter is egalitarian, the former discriminatory. The acceptability of, say, death bad is contextual, e.g. please don't use death bad arguments to impact turn structural violence arguments that terminate in death. Also, don't say slurs that denigrate any group that you are not a member of, even as an example of something people should not do. That will LOSE YOU THE ROUND (unless both sides do it? Please, don't give me a round where I'm inclined to drop both sides because of this). I do understand that my conception of what is problematic may deviate from what others believe, and I am not all-knowing, so feel free to run discourse Ks if you think that the opponent did something that warrants a loss. If your points make sense to me, or I can extrapolate them to something persuasive (not just plausible, but persuasive), then I will vote on the discourse K even if you are losing it on the flow. I think it's bad to create norms in which people can only feel included in debate if they can win, in round, that something offensive is offensive and that such behavior warrants a loss. Of course, even if I am not persuaded, I will vote for the K if you are winning it.

-I am open to almost any debate style (K-Affs, performance, plans, CPs, T vs. K has no default, etc.). Below, I say there are things I dislike - running these will not lead to a conscious speaks penalty, and I will evaluate such arguments, but I thought providing such warnings was only fair since I could be subconsciously influenced by those preferences.

-I will intervene if necessary. For example, if both sides concede each other's impacts without weighing them, I have to weigh them myself. If each side concedes a supposedly round-winning trick, I'll have to choose one of the trix or try to resolve the debate on another flow, etc. But, see the section on presumption.

C/X

-I'll pay attention to it. I'll even flow it. So, feel free to leverage C/X concessions.

Spreading

-My current format, APDA, is slower, on average, than circuit LD spreading, and three years have passed since my last circuit LD round. At its fastest, APDA is ~200 WPM. You can try going faster at your own risk, and I will say "slow" if you request that I do so before the round. There is a limit to this, though - if I have to say "slow" too often (I know, subjective), I'll just give up on following your speech. Also, you may not hear my slows because of Zoom.

-Add me to an email chain if you're spreading. Please don't spend too much time with emailing. Use the email address tai.henrichs @t gmail (d0t) com

Framework / Philosophy

-I am a Philosophy major and enjoyed philosophy rounds in high school. I can probably follow your philosophical arguments (util, social contract, freedom as non-domination, Kantian constructivism, Rawls, pragmatists, virtue ethics, etc.).

-You can debate framework or concede to your opponent's and link to their standard (or both). I won't be bothered by either. Just do what's strategic. I mention this even though it seems like an obvious point because some judges disliked when I did this myself.

-See the trix section if you like Phil trix.

Kritiks

-If you want to run a non-topical affirmative, K/performance or otherwise, I am cool with that. But, if you want to win, it helps to clearly link my ballot to whatever your advocacy is. Also, your advocacy should be clear. By advocacy, I just mean what you are specifically defending, e.g. the end of the world in some Wildersonian K-affs I have seen in the past. I have no default on T vs. K.

-If you have a performance position that is supplemented by additional media, like music, please send those as well (e.g. in case the lyrics of a song or poem become important to the round). Also because I may have difficulty hearing you over your music, so having a text copy of your case is extra important in that scenario.

-I am open to a variety of links (substantive, discursive, whatever) to Kritiks.

-I am not well-versed in critical theory, though I have read some.

-I don't think Kritiks are actually different in nature from phil, but I divide my paradigm this way since they are often treated distinctly in the debate context. Basically, if you have a k vs. phil education debate (for some reason), I will view it as irrelevant by default.

T / Theory

-I tend to dislike theory and T debates, but this is just because they often become a war of random, tiny pull-throughs. If you can have a clean theory / T debate, I am all ears.

-I'm fine with specific, tailored shells, e.g. "5 condo pics bad," but I'm also fine with arguments that such shells are inconsistent with norm-setting or competing interpretations. Or regressive, or arbitrary, or whatever.

-I have no defaults on the priority of T vs. K, reasonability vs. competing interpretations, norm-setting vs. in-round abuse, drop the debater vs. drop the arg, jurisdiction vs. fairness, etc. This means that if no one tells me the implications of a theory/T violation, the violation has no implication. Also, competing interpretations is not equivalent to norm-setting. If competing interpretations is accepted because it creates a clear bright-line for resolving whether violations have occurred, it is still up for debate whether we should evaluate theory rules based on their application to all of LD vs. just this round.

-Violations should be verifiable. Note: a failure to disclose is verifiable, either by providing a screenshot or just directing me to check their disclosure page. I distinguish between what happens inside of the round and what is readily verifiable based on what either side presents to me (this can include screenshots, etc. to prove events prior to the round). This stuff also applies to evidence ethics stuff, though tab may get involved if they have a policy indicating as much.

-I am fine with T in response to plans (e.g. I assume some plan affs on this topic are "[X] just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike," to which one response I will evaluate is "T: usage of the word 'a'"). I am also fine with effects-T and the like (e.g. on this topic, against "[X] just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike," I am open to a "T: definition of just" shell whose violation is dependant on the framework debate defining what justice requires, and hence whether [X] is just. Note that I am aware this is not strictly an example of effects-T).

-I dislike what I perceive as frivolous theory/T but will evaluate it.

Trix

- I generally dislike trix (a prioris, NIBs, trivialism, skep triggers, [A/N]FC, etc.) but will evaluate them. I dislike trix less if they are clear to find, rather than buried between points or inside taglines or whatever.

-Also, trix need warrants, not just assertions. If you spread 50 different statements that X wins you the round, I will not vote for you if the other side just says "These are all warrantless. Ignore them," assuming they are right.

Policy Arguments (Plans, DAs, CPs, PICs, etc.)

-No defaults on conditionality vs. uncondo vs. dispositionality, etc. If you can win it, it's yours.

-I ran lots of DAs, CPs, PICs, etc. Running a CP requires proving you are competitive - please give reasons for this in the 1 NC.

-Also fine with agent CPs.

-I am fine with plan affs, but see the T/ Theory section for plan-related T/Theory issues.

Truth-Testing vs. Comparative Worlds

-I think this distinction is often irrelevant, but my default, since I have to have one to resolve the round, is truth-testing. Note that under utilitarianism, winning the affirmative world is better also means your world is the one that ought to be pursued, rendering the resolution true, so this distinction is not as big a deal to me as it is to many people. Yes, this also means I think that CPs, Ks, etc. are often coherent under truth-testing because the truth of "I ought to X" is contingent on the alternatives available to me, at least under some frameworks like utilitarianism, under many ROBs, etc. I only default to truth-testing because it seems more tab to me, in that it permits relevance to more arguments. For example, it's not clear to me how the "the resolution should be interpreted as a vacuous conditional, vote affirmative" trick should be evaluated using world comparison.

-feel free to deny anything just said in the above paragraph. e.g. you can argue that I should use world comparison or that truth-testing precludes CPs if you want.

-Truth-testing is how I evaluate the round if it is accepted that my role as the judge is to adjudicate the topic. If there is, say, an ROB that establishes my obligation to vote for the side that better deconstructs capitalism, this may disalign from voting for the side that makes the resolution more or less true (e.g. obviously true if this is a non-T aff vs. cap K round, potentially true if the K runs discourse links that are not particular to the discourse of the resolution). Such framing issues will implicitly take precedence in the event that they conflict with my default truth-testing paradigm. Of course, there could be a live debate about how ROBs interact with truth testing, or the like, in which case I will defer to the flow.

Presumption

In the absence of other arguments, in a round that is truly a wash, I will flip a coin. Note that a truly offenseless round is nearly impossible to achieve short of neither side making arguments. What seems like a presumption triggering round to you is probably a round where, by default, I'll vote on some marginal point (trying to find some layer somewhere that someone is ahead on). If you make explicit presumption arguments, I will listen, and I will be less willing to intervene (e.g. by default, if necessary, I'll weigh unweighed impacts, but if presumption is a live issue, I'll just treat conflicting, unweighed impacts as canceling each other out, no matter how unsensible this appears to me).

Novice:

-Please don't spread or read trix, theory, kritiks, plans, or CPs in novice. If you do, I will have a much lower threshold for responses than I would for J/V or Varsity. The opponent may agree to allow these, either explicitly or by employing such arguments/practices in a manner that makes clear their facility with them, in which case I will evaluate the round like a J/V or varsity one.

Gautam Jha Edina High School None

Pranita Keenigi Eden Prairie High School None

Mark Kivimaki Edina High School

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 10:20 AM CDT

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

Ankitha Kumar Eagan High School

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

Eagan '21

Emory '25

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

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

Important

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

Traditional Stuff

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

Circuit Stuff

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

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

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

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

Other

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

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

Speaks

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

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

Please be nice! Debate should be fun!

Matthew Kumar-Montei Edina High School

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

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

tl;dr for prefs:

topical K - 1

non-topical K, Phil, Policy - 2

everything else - 3

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

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

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

General Other Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shawn Lin Eden Prairie High School

Mihika Linge Eden Prairie High School None

Calvin McMahon Wayzata

Jacob Nails Apple Valley High School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Alex Nelson St. Croix Prep

Last changed on Mon November 28, 2022 at 1:58 PM CDT

Name: Alex Nelson

Background: I debated for St. Croix Prep (MN) for three years. During that time I competed in LD, a few policy rounds, BQ, and World Schools. I am familiar with circuit style LD, but the majority of rounds I debated in were mostly traditional with a bit of Circuit Debate.

General Overview/TLDR: The majority of rounds I have judged recently have been traditional LD rounds and policy. I know the basics of circuit LD, anything that is niche or not super common will need to be really well explained. I’m ok with most arguments and won’t vote against you for anything specific unless the argument is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle some speed, as long as you slow down for authors and tags. Value and Criterion are a must. Link arguments through the framework and on the flow and you will do just fine. Don’t be a jerk in round and have fun.

Argumentation

In general, I am ok with almost all arguments. I will not listen to any arguments based on racist, sexist, homophobic, or other degrading attitudes. I judge the round based on who won the framework debate and best linked and impacted their arguments back into the winning framework. I evaluate based on the flow, so be sure to signpost clearly and be organized in your rebuttals. Extensions are always great but explain why you are extending the card. Don’t just say “Extend My Nietzsche Card” and expect me to do so. Dropped arguments are not immediately a game over issue for me. You must explain why the dropped argument is or is not important. I think philosophy and philosophic inquiry are really central to LD, so I love to see philosophy in round. I always like to see voting issues in the final speech for both aff and neg. The 2AR especially should be a crystallization and summary. I don’t need line by line in the 2AR. Also, don’t be a jerk in round or after the round. Treat both me and your opponent with respect.

Speaks

The whole speaker points system has devolved into a kind of arbitrary and subjective estimation. I will start at a 26 for an average performance and go up from there. To get a 30, you need to be a fantastic debater and a fantastic speaker. If you are vocally abusive or personally criticize your opponent, you will get a 20 or lower.

My view on National Circuit Debate

I am familiar with Circuit LD and have a pretty solid notion of all the basic concepts (K’s, Topicality, Plans, CPs, PICs, Fiat, etc.). Anything really esoteric or nuanced about circuit style or organization I am not super great at. If you are running "circuity" stuff, keep in mind the preferences for each thing listed below.

Framework

I am a one hundred percent believer in the Value and Criterion framework. If you don’t have a Value Criterion (V/C), It is incredibly difficult to weigh or impact your arguments. You should be linking and impacting arguments through a V/C, whether it is yours, your opponent’s, or both frameworks. Even if you run a plan, it is very difficult to evaluate anything without the Value and Criterion. For me, the framework provides the best way to evaluate arguments, crystallize the round, and convince me on voting issues.

Topicality

I’m not a huge fan of running topicality in LD rounds. If you are going to run it, it should be because your opponent is clearly and obviously extratropical. Don’t run Topicality if you and your opponent have competing definitions that are somewhat similar, just explain to me why your definition applies better or some similar argument. If, however, your opponent has a definition that is really stretching the meaning of a word, or is not all reasonable, then run Topicality. Please do not use it as a time suck to bog down the aff.

Plans/CP’s

I am not a the biggest fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but I will listen to them, provided they are well run. If a plan has not been read, please do not read a counter plan. You can read the cards and just frame it as a kind of alternative option to the aff, but I don’t like hearing CP’s when no official plan text has been read even if the aff seems like a plan. I also would prefer if a plan was linked through some sort of weighing mechanism.

Kritiks

I love Kritiks. They are rooted in philosophy and are thus perfectly suited for LD. Make sure if you run a K that you have the essential parts: Link, Impact, Alt, and are very clear about what those are. Vague alts like reject the aff are very weak and easily permed or turned. If you are kritiking a speech act or something outside of your opponent’s arguments, you will have to explain to me why that matters in debate.

Theory

I confess that I have not seen or read a lot of theory arguments. From my limited perspective on it, I am not a big fan unless it acts as a check on legitimate abuse. You will have to really walk me through theory arguments that don't address something that is clearly abusive.

Speed

I can handle a decent amount of speed. I probably cannot understand your fastest, but I did do a bit of policy, so I bet I can understand more than most traditional judges. The important thing is to SLOW DOWN FOR AUTHORS AND TAGS. Seriously, like normal or traditional debate speed. This is because I need to be able to understand the basic outline of your argument. If I miss a little detail in the cards, that is something that can be overcome. If I don’t know what your third contention is, it becomes very hard to evaluate your argument. If I can’t understand you, I will say “clear”. If I say it a second time and I still cannot understand you, I will audibly drop my pen and stop flowing. This should be a sign that I am not putting any of your arguments on the flow, and thus I cannot evaluate them. If there is an email chain, I would love to be put

Good luck in round and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Aithanh Nguyen Forest Lake Sr High School None

Deserea Niemann Lakeville

Dora Ogunkanbi Robbinsdale Armstrong High School None

Doug Pewowaruk Rosemount Sr High School

Kris Qiu Wayzata

Christian Quiroz Apple Valley High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:07 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

J Randolph Chanhassen High School None

Olivia Reeves St. Croix Prep

Elijah Reisman Apple Valley High School

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 11:28 AM EDT

Cypress Bay High School 2020

Emory University 2024

Note for 2023-24 Season: I have not done debate-oriented research for this topic, so I likely will not be the most familiar with your arguments before the debate begins. I have done some light research on topics peripheral to the resolution this year for my undergraduate work though.

hielijah@gmail.com

TLDR: I primary focused in high school on reading CPs, DAs, and Affs with plans, but I will vote on whatever. Speaker points explanation is at the bottom of the paradigm if you are here for that. I enjoy pretty much any debate, so don't let my paradigm influence what arguments you make. Just have a fun time. Please add me to the email chain before the round starts. If you have any questions just ask before the round

DA's: Impact comparison is super important. I've always thought that politics DA's are usually pretty bad, but if you are bringing the heat with the politics cards on the neg, or can point out the flaws in your average politics DA during the round I will be extra happy.

CP's: I am not a huge fan of the average consult counter plan in past years, but given the shallow DA ground on this topic I am more tolerant of them than I usually would be.

CP Theory: If you want to go for theory go for it, if you can stop the flow from being messy that would be nice.

Ks: Do whatever you like, not a huge fan of long overviews. I am not super convinced by plan focused style arguments, but I can be convinced otherwise.

T: Do whatever. As of now I have not judged any rounds on cjr and have not cut many cards for the topic either. Do with that information as you will.

planless affs: Go for it, just do impact calc when going for and answering T. K v K debates I'm down to watch, but will need clear link explanation during the debate.

Tech vs Truth: Tech over truth, but if something is untrue it is easier to answer.

Speaks: Generally I will try to conform to tournament norms and community norms

LD Notes:

Quick pref help: (LARP>K>Trad>Theory>Phil>Tricks)

Most of stuff from policy paradigm applies.

Not a huge fan of tricks, spikes, or rvi's but if you win on them I'll vote for them.

PF Notes:

Do whatever you want.

Cori Roberts Apple Valley High School

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated October 2nd, 2021

Seth Sandhoefner East Ridge High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 21, 2019 at 1:56 PM CDT

Updated for Blake RR 2019.
If you're reading this for the RR..
Go for it. Tech > truth. This is for fun. It's a RR. Yes I'll buy the arg.

I competed in more traditional LD debate in high school and in college dabbled in NPDA and NFA LD. For the first couple years out I worked with policy and LD and then finally found PF where you'll mostly see me these days (if they decide to throw me in the LD pool (which at Blake this weekend I am in as a backup plan)..we'll talk, yo. I'm not 0 competent, I swear).

TL;DR top 5 things

1.) Live. Love. Flow. the round will be flowed in such a way I could debate it.
2.) Weigh. Weigh. Then weigh again. I believe way too often mid level PF rounds boil down to impact x and impact y in a close round where it's not being impacted clear enough. In these you are forcing me to (at times) arbitrarily decide the winner
3.) Warrant debate.
4.) Cover your case in second rebuttal
5.) I need to hear winning arguments in both summary and FF

General Stuff:
1.) I am fine with speed insofar that you are not doing it to simply exclude the opponent
2.) I am fine with jargon insofar that you are not doing it to simply exclude the opponent
3.) I believe 97% of the time debaters can be aggressive, but respectful. Feel free to go after all argumentation but don't make personal offensive attacks.
4.) If you weigh and link and warrant I will listen to any non-offensive argument
5.) I pay attention to crossfire but assume I'm not flowing it. Bring it up in the speech if there is something critical you want me to weigh
6.) Framework debate: Given my first exposure to debate was a framework heavy LD this is something I value. I default to Net Benefits and don't think I need anything else said about framework in a round. HOWEVER, if you win a framework that is clearly extended this is the ONLY way I will weigh the round.
7.) Signpost.
8.) I'm putting this at the end because I hope it's given by now but evidence quality is REALLY REALLY important.

Speaker points
I am in the perpetual loop of believing A.) speaker points are grossly inflated in today's debate and B.) me trying to single handedly follow a system that coherently makes sense to me punishes good debaters for no reason. What this usually creates is me giving losing teams around a 27 and winning teams around a 28 to 28.5. Good debaters definitely will see 29+. I usually give 0-1 30s a year but a handful of 29.5-29.8

Theory
Given my background in LD and policy I'm more tolerant than most of this (theory/T/K). I believe there are critical problems and theory works as a great check against potential abuse in round. The catch: I need structure. My expectations, for example, if you choose to run theory would be the same of that in any other debate activity. I need A.) Interp B.) Violation C.) Standard(s) and D.) Voter. If these are not extended in every speech I'm not voting on it.

Brandon Schellhaass Apple Valley High School 8 rounds

Joe Schmitt Edina High School

Cheri Shatto Okoboji Community School

Joann Southwell Apple Valley High School 8 rounds None

Rendy Tanubrata Eden Prairie High School 8 rounds None

Mark Thul St Francis HS

Nolan Trihn Minnetonka High School

Hillary Turinawe Roseville Area High School

Bianca Turman Eagan High School

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 4:48 AM EDT

Hi, I use she/they pronouns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General

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

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

gatlingdoescollege@gmail.com for any email chains

Andrew Urevig Robbinsdale Armstrong High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 4:02 AM CDT

I did LD as a debater and now coach LD for Armstrong High School. I co-founded the Minnesota Debate Institute, where I worked mainly with LD and Congressional debate.

‏‏‎ ‎

You can win in front of me by extending offense (contention-level impacts or turns) that links to the winning criterion and outweighs your opponent's offense. It's not enough to just say "extend;" you should re-explain the warrant of the argument (briefly is fine!) and re-explain the link to the contention (again, briefly is fine!). Weighing is A+. And the criterion does still exist! You're allowed to read a framework other than utilitarianism, and it can make for an interesting, educational debate.

‏‏‎ ‎

Explain arguments well. Please be clear so someone hearing your ideas/authors for the first time can get what you're saying.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

Please do not spread (speed read) or read national circuit / policy case styles (Ks, CPs, theory, etc.). Spreading and nat circuit-style arguments tend to make LD debate more exclusionary, racist, and classist. If your opponent runs these things, still do your best to respond to their argument's warrants and tell me it's exclusionary, and then I'll probably vote for you.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

The issue with national circuit and policy case styles tends to be, IMO, form/structure, not content. So if you have a good critical or policy-oriented argument you want to run, cool: Put it in an accessible case format and let's go.

I care about evidence quality. Johnson '98? Lastname '20? A brief garble of syllables and a two digit number are not a citation. :) Even at tournaments that don't require full source citations, I'd love to hear them (author, author qualification, publication/source, year). Folks run skeeeetchy cards... call them on it!! Evidence matters.

I evaluate arguments only if I can distinguish what words you are saying. When I listen to a set of syllables, can I hear a word? If I cannot hear a word, then I cannot flow or consider the argument. I will not read a case doc while folks imitate spreading; I'd like to hear the arguments. The trend of case docs and spreading worsens the neg side bias and, more importantly, makes debate an even more exclusionary activity to folks without access to the immense financial and social resources required to engage effectively in such practices. (Update: I didn't think spreading could get worse, but I'm now seeing it! This trend of people "reading" at Mach 12 -- faster than before, faster than fast, making sounds that barely approximate spoken words -- while their opponent and judge just skim along with a case doc ... that trend is objectively terrible. Objectivity doesn't even exist, but this trend is still objectively terrible. I wish the adults in this activity would do better to guide the young people on their teams towards good debate.)

Argument content: I am open to hearing critical race theory, feminist philosophy, deep ecology, anti-capitalism, or whatever ideas you want to run. Debate is about exploring ideas, so run what's important and interesting to you. If it's a serious argument, I will not vote you down just because you read something outside the Overton Window of whiteness, patriarchy and U.S. empire.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

That said, please do think critically and carefully about how your social position relates to the arguments you're running and to your opponent's social position. For example, suppose you're a white debater reading a ("pre-fiat") position with many cards from Black women writers, a position that asks the judge to vote for your performance in the round or something. Particularly if your opponent is a Black woman, is it ethical for you to run that position? Maybe not.

‏‏‎ ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

Btw, we should never run arguments that are harmful. Right? If someone is racist in round, for example, I'll vote against them. Please don't blame people for circumstances they're trapped in due to oppression. Please don't deny the tragic reality — and deep weight — of racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, settler colonialism, ableism, colorism, and other forms of domination, marginalization, and violence.

‏‏‎ ‎

Debate should be fun, yes, but we're also talking about serious stuff — many of us from perspectives of privilege. Let's be respectful of the people we're debating and the people we're debating about, and we should be cool. Good luck in the round; I look forward to judging you! :)

Sachidanandhan Venkatakrishnan Minnetonka High School 8 rounds None

Yana Verkholyak Maple Grove

Sasha Warbritton Eden Prairie High School

Rhoda Lynn Weaver-Watson East Ridge High School 8 rounds None

Molly Welch Minnetonka High School

Rehana Wells Edina High School None

Ginger Williams Moorhead High School

Maggie Wuollet Robbinsdale Cooper High School

Lawrence Zhou Apple Valley High School

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 11:45 AM CDT

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.

Login to Tabroom

ERHS Raptor Invitational Palooza

2021 — Online, MN/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges