Experience level:

I've been in debate for 11 years. 4 years as a student, 5 years as a coach and 2 years as a Program Coordinator for the Minnesota Urban Debate League.

2025 Sections/State:

I haven't had a lot of time to judge on this topic. That means that I'm not exposed to the meta of the topic, nor do I have a great amount of subject knowledge. That means you probably have to do more work to explain to me what you are talking about and why you should win.

Having judged at sections I have a very good idea of the meta of the topic and am very familiar with it. I debated on the China topic during my senior year of high school and have a personal interest in AI and have done research in my free time into AI. As well as I've seen quite a few native ip affs, and I used to run give back the land my sophomore year of highschool. I am however still unfamiliar with the legalism stuff so you should explain your legal mechanisms to me.

Generalized thoughts

I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.

My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know.

I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.

Kritiks

I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative.

For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts alarger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

Topicality

T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.

This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.

Disadvantages

I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.

Cross ex

Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.

Speaker Points

Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
30=Perfect speech
27.5=Average
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior

If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at akintola@augsburg.edu

Amund461@umn.edu

Senior U of M, 4th year of policy debate, 4 years of high school debate.

I am not a fan of overviews.

Mi filosofía de juez de Debate en español (DEE) es primero. Desplácese hacia abajo para ver mi paradigma del debate político en inglés.

My judge philosophy for Debate en español (DEE) is first. Scroll down for my English policy debate paradigm.

Yo soy Sandy!

Yo utilizo los pronombres they/them en inglés, y él/ella/elle (cualquier) en español. No tengo preferencia entre “tú” o “usted”. Por favor, solo refiere a mi como “juez” y no con mi nombre.

2025 es mi decimotercero (13th) año participando en el debate con la Liga de Debate Urbana de Minnesota (MNUDL).

Yo debatí para la liga de DEE del MNUDL por dos años con el equipo de Roosevelt H.S.

Para DEE, no es necesario mandarme su evidencia por correo electrónico.

Accesibilidad y mis responsabilidades como educador

Siempre me puedes avisar si hay algún necesidad de accesibilidad para debatir, y nunca tienes que justificarlo.Mi responsabilidad primaria es asegurar que las necesidades de todos los debatientes están satisfechas. Avísame si tienes alguna pregunta sobre las acomodaciones.

Si no te escucho, yo diré “aclara!” dos veces en el debate. Luego, es tu responsabilidad observar si estoy confundida o perdida.

Yo no evaluaré argumentos sobre los problemas que ocurren fuera de los debates. Siempre puedes mandarme un correo electrónico privado durante si hay algún problema. Yo siempre involucrara a los adultos confiables de la comunidad, incluso el Tabroom, NAUDL, y tus coaches.

En mi opinión, el mejor forma de resolver conflicto no es a través de la competencia, sino un modelo basado en la comunidad y la transformación.

Yo soy reportera mandatoria. Toma este hecho en cuenta antes de compartir narrativas personales en tus debates. Si menciones cualquiera experiencia con la violencia, lo necesito reportar entre 48 horas a las autoridades. Aunque no estoy de acuerdo con el sistema de reporte mandatorio, todavía es mi obligación legal.

Filosofía de debate

Debate es para los debatientes. ¡Haz lo que mejor sabes hacer! ¡No es necesario cambiar tu estilo de debatir en frente de mi, solo échale ganas y diviértete!

Los argumentos teóricos del debate: Por favor, no intentas leer argumentos teóricos del estilo de debate policy como Topicality o Conditionality. La moción del año fue escrito antes de la planificación de la división nacional, entonces los límites bajo la resolución son confusos. Además, no es justo para los debatientes sin experiencia en debate policy.

Yo valoro el uso de la narrativa y el análisis panorámico en tus discursos y refutaciones.Me encanta una estrategia afirmativa que muestra claramente porque es urgente solucionar los problemas del 1AC. Me encanta evidencias del lado negativo que muestra como el mundo del plan afirmativo será peor que la situación actual. Me encanta una refutación que hace una comparación clara entre el plan afirmativo y un contra plan negativo. etc.¿Como puedes lograr esto en tus debates?

• El razonamiento: Explica porque tu evidencia conecta a tu declaración argumentativo de una manera lógica y clara. No es suficiente declarar que “el plan afirmativo solucionará el cambio climático!” sin evidencia.

• Los impactos: Enfatiza la importancia de tus argumentos. ¿Por que importa proteger la Amazonia? ¿Qué pasará si empiece una guerra de agua? ¿Por qué debemos proteger a la soberanía indígena? Y explica tus impactos con confianza! En vez de decir que el cambio climático “tal vez” pasará en los próximos 100s años, explica que el cambio climático esta garantizada de CAUSAR LA EXTINCIÓN DE LA HUMANIDAD EN LOS PRÓXIMOS 20 AÑOS!!! La confianza + un poco de exageración + la evidencia de alta calidad = un discurso persuasivo!

• La solvencia: El lado afirmativo (o el lado negativo si tiene una contraplan) debe explicar cómo su moción solucionará los problemas. En este caso, se tiene que explicar cómo funcionará un tratado regional de Deforestación Cero.

• La comunicación eficaz: Yo necesito poder entender lo que dices durante los discursos. Si yo, el juez, no puedo entender lo que dices, no voy a poder evaluar tus argumentos. Por favor no lees la evidencia demasiadamente rápido.

• La evidencia de alta calidad: ¡Es importante! Yo tengo una definición de evidencia expansiva - narrativas, jornales científicos, poesía, artículos, historia, etc.

• La comparación: No es suficiente declarar tus propios argumentos. También necesitas hacer comparaciones entre tus argumentos y los argumentos de tus oponentes.

¡Por favor, define tus acrónimos antes de usarlo!

Aquí son algunos de los miembros de la comunidad que han impactado mi filosofía de debate: Tiana Bellamy, Zuko Buechler, Samia Abdalla, Melekh Akintola, Jake Swede, Dua Saleh, Genesia Williams, Izak Gallini-Matyas, Marshall Steele, Jordan Frese, Clara Conry, Sofia Burgess and Noah Winters, y más.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

I'm Sandy! I use they/them (ENG) or él/ella/elle (ESP) pronouns. 2025 will be my thirteenth year in policy debate with the Minnesota Urban Debate League.

Please add me onto your email chains! Please add bothboltonbarrientosdebate@gmail.com and southdebatecoaches@gmail.com. I prefer email chains to speech-drop, Tabroom, etc.

Please, please, please talk to me about Debate en español!!

• 2nd year as the Debate en español Coach at Minneapolis South
• 4th year as the Community Coach for NSDA Policy at Minneapolis South
• Debated for Roosevelt H.S. for 4 years and Keewaydin M.S. for 3 years. Go MNUDL!

Accessibility & Educator Responsibilities

You can always let me know if you have any accessibility needs entering a debate round and you do not have to justify it to me. I’ll try my best to meet everybody in the room where they’re at since that’s my responsibility as an educator.If you are curious, please ask me for examples of accommodations that judges can reasonably make.

I will "clear" you twice, then it is up to you to notice if I looked panicked and confused while flowing.

I’m still learning how to flow without relying on the speech docs. It’s a public speaking activity, I need to be able to hear your arguments, not just read them. If I didn’t flow them, that’s your fault. **EMPHASIS ON STILL LEARNING - my flowing skills aren’t quite where I want them to be yet, so slow down where it matters and send analytics in the doc if possible, just as a back-up.

I will not vote on out-of-round issues. You can always email me privately if you are having an issue. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to trusted adults in the community including Tabroom, the MNUDL and your coaches.

If there's a reason that something uncommon needs to happen in a debate, please let me know BEFORE THE DEBATE and don't bring it up as a theory argument. I find it is best to deal with community based issues not through a competitive lens, but through a community consensus, transformative justice and equity-centered, trauma-informed model. Legitimate reasons are fine and important, but trying to 'game' the system with these kinds of 'ethics' violations will end very poorly for everyone involved.

I am a mandatory reporter. Keep this in mind when sharing personal narratives in debate, etc. If you tell me about experiences with violence, I have to report it within 48 hours to coaches, the MNUDL, and the authorities. If you’re curious on my thoughts about mandated reporting, as well as tools for young people to navigate it, visit mandatedreportingisnotneutral.com. Despite my nuanced opinions on mandated reporting, it is still my legal obligation under my coaches contract to bring in law enforcement if I suspect you are at risk of harm.

Debate Philosophy

I highly value story-telling and big picture analysis in your speeches. Big Picture > Minutiae 100%

I lovea 1AC with a narrative (i.e. internal link chain) that is easy to understand. I love a 2AR overview that tells me why the AFF’s impacts matter on each flow at the end of the debate. I love a Kritik 2NR that flips the script of the 1AC to tell me why the links actuallydo matter in the greater context of liberation and structural violence. I love a counterplan v. permutation v. AFF plan debate that really lays out what it means for the conditional advocacies to be mutually exclusive i.e. competitive or not.

What does this mean for you practically?

• Impacts: When listening to the impact debate (on any flow-- framework, T, theory, kritikal or policy strategies), I'm looking for you to strategically and persuasively tell me why the impact is the most important thing in the round. Exaggerate! Tell me it's "try or die" for the AFF/NEG! Minimize your opponents' impact any chance you get! Abandon phrases like "might happen" or "could solve" and replace it with "will happen" and "absolutely solves". Don't be afraid to use impact calculus. Of course, these framing tools require warrants just like any other argument, but they really make a difference in if I will confidently vote for you or not.

• Internal Links: Speaking of warrants, you need coherent internal link chains. Telling me "vote AFF to avoid nuclear war" in your rebuttals isn't enough. It's important to answer questions like: War with who? When? And of course, what's the link to the AFF? Telling me the "AFF perpetuates capitalism " isn't enough. What part of capitalism? Over-consumption? Labor exploitation? Extractive logic? Wealth hoarding?

• Solvency: Advocacy statements and solvency should be clearly and consistently explained and extended for both AFF and NEG (if applicable). If you're AFF, make it clear why the AFF is mutually exclusive with any alternative NEG advocacies. I will catch if your Kritik alternative explanation changes every speech lol.

• Compare your arguments with your opponents -- clash is king! "They say, we say" rules.

• Communicate effectively -- if you're so fast you're unintelligible, or if your Kritik blocks are so dense that nobody understands what's going on, that is on you. I will yell “clear” but only twice.

• High-quality evidence is really important. I have a pretty expansive understanding of evidence: storytelling, anecdotes, poetry, dance, journals, zines, prose, scientific journals, history, accounts, ancestral wisdom, common sense thinking, etc. are all forms of evidence that can generate knowledge and prove your arguments. They can also all be contested.

• Theory: I do not have the flowing skills nor brain for intensely technical theory debates. Procedural arguments like Condo, A-Spec, NEG Fiat Bad, etc. will not make it in my RFD unless it was egregiously dropped. This is ESPECIALLY true of the habit of interspersing theory with substance throughout speeches and spreading through it. I cannot follow that, gamers. I simply will not be able to catch your hidden two-sentence Condo Bad voters.

• On that note, Topicality and Framework are definitely on my RFDs. If you do want to go for those arguments, especially in a more techy style, this is a sign for you to slow! down!

• Kritiks: I was almost exclusively a K debater in high school and now I’m a professional abolitionist. If you're curious about Kritiks, want feedback on strategies, or just to talk through ideas -- please talk to me! I can definitely provide more specific comments and ideas on abolition, Indigenous studies and queer theory. I ran more queer theory arguments in H.S., studied Indigenous Studies in college, and work in the field of police abolition now. I am pretty good at connecting conceptual, abstract Kritik concepts to real-world organizing if you want to chat about examples.

• Please define your acronyms before you use them!

• As opposed to Abbie "Big A" Amundsen (<3), I am a big fan of overviews!

Stolen from Izak the GOAT

Debate is for the debaters. Do what you are best at. You have worked hard on your arguments – don’t over adapt to me, just execute as well as you can.

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

Don't Run "XYZ" Argument & Implicit Bias (adapted from Ideological Flexibility).If you said something is good, the other team can say it's bad. If the argument is horrible, it should be easy to answer. I like it to be played out in debates when possible because that's what we are here to do.

AND ALSO, I am also a marginalized person with acute lived experiences related to white supremacy, xenophobia, ableism, queerphobia, transphobia etc. That positions me as a minority in the debate community. I experienceall arguments through those lenses. This has been true as a competitor and a coach, which is what informs my commitment to abolitionist debate education.

If your arguments implicate the dignity and humanity of me and/or my communities, I will dislike it. It will affect how I evaluate the round. This is an invitation for you to think critically about your audiences. I'm happy to be patient with you as I explain my perspective, if you are willing to listen to it outside the scope of the competition.

We are in community with each other and I care about those relationships. Sometimes the game of debate has to be put on pause to care for the people in the room, especially if they feel that an argument was uncomfortable and/or harmful. Earnestly talking about how arguments affect people is an important factor of argumentation and winning debates, too, because it implicates your method.

JV/Novice

Tag-team is fine, but I mostly want to hear from the designated debater and for people to avoid unnecessary interruptions. If you and your partner choose to do tag team debate, then you must "tag in" if you want to ask/answer a question and "tag out" when you're done asking/aswering questions. How you tag-team is up to you (high five, fist bump, etc.). I won't enforce this preference during the debate other than sharing it here and it won’t have any speaker point consequences. I just think it's a great way to navigate cross-ex with your partner in a way that's balanced, equitable, and fun!

Debate Lineages

I believe that citation is a feminist practice of archiving memories and giving credit where credit is due. “It is how we leave a trail of where we have been and who helped us along the way,” (Sara Ahmed, 2015). These are some of the brilliant debaters, educators and community members that have shaped how I see this weird and beautiful activity: Tiana Bellamy, Zuko Buechler, Samia Abdalla, Melekh Akintola, Jake Swede, Dua Saleh, Genesia Williams, Izak Gallini-Matyas, Jordan Frese, Clara Conry, Sofia Burgess and Noah Winters, just to name a few. This list barely scratches the surface of people from the MNUDL whose existence in debate changed my brain chemistry for the better!

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

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

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

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

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

Updated 3/11/25

Minneapolis South '17 || University of Minnesota '21

Coach at Minneapolis Edison HS Fall '17 - Spring '20 || Part-time Coach at UMN Fall '21 - Present

Email: josiahferguson3.14@gmail.com Yes put me on the email chain, feel free to email me any questions. Currently work for a city civil engineering department, was a 2A for most of my debate career.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

Cliff Notes:

HS: low topic knowledge, haven't judged on this topic yet, barely thought about it.

College: pretty high topic knowledge, been doing some work for UMN and judged 36 debates so far, I value debates that show off your knowledge of the topic.

Speed, good if clear, warrant dense and slow > fast nonsense, I flow on paper so I need pen time.

FW v. k aff, yes fairness is an impact, but often a small one. K aff can win, but probably needs some explanation of the role of the negative (and how they can reasonably accomplish this role).

Longer version:

About Me:

I debated 592 rounds (30 middle school, 275 high school, 287 college) and have judged 379 (59 middle school, 130 High School, 180 College), best result: octa-finalist at the 2021 NDT.

Debate is an educational activity. My role as a judge includes being an educator. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you feel welcome and safe.

I value clarity over speed, I still flow on paper so I need pen time and clear communication on what you want me to write down. I usually flow straight down. I often read along with the doc but don't flow from it, except for things like CP texts that I will go back and look at if there is a discussion of exactly how it is written.
Default to tech > truth, though truth often determines how much tech you need. I usually evaluate most args probabilistically on offense vs defense.

Specific arguments:

T vs K affs - Yes. Fairness is probably an impact, though fairly small, clash is about the only other impact worth saying, the neg probably needs some way to mitigate aff offense including: TVA, switch side or process over content. Aff’s should probably have a model of debate, as it is difficult to convince me that an activity that you devoted your time to is wholly bad. Having a clear role for the neg can help against fairness and clash offense. Procedure based DAs to FW are better than content ones.

K vs Policy - Cap or security probably best k options in front of me. I’m fine for some specific Ks, but I haven't read much of the lit in depth. I’m ok for identity Ks (antiblackness, gender, queerness) in that I have a base level of understanding but have a prety high threshold for ontology claims. I’m not good for Baudrillard, Bataille, D&G or Nietzsche, etc. I have a high threshold for no Ks FW on the aff, easily win that you get to weigh the aff, though what that means is up for debate, and should be explained. Please impact out what I should do if you win your interp on FW. Much prefer a push on consequentialism good to just a push on extinction outweighs.

T v Policy - Default to T a priori. Standards with warrants are needed in the 1NC. Tell me what reasonability means and why it is good beyond the generic one liner if you want me to vote on it (ie 1-2 minutes of the 2ar + 2-3 sentences in each speech before then). Think of reasonability as going for presumption, you shouldn't do it often and when you do it should be the focal point of your speech.

Theory/CP - most condo is probably good, types of CPs, and solvency advocates matter more than just the number of condo, though I will vote on condo. I have found myself voting aff on condo more than I would like - 2nr please include neg flex, fairness outweighs and dispo fails. Love a good Adv CP out of a non-intrinsic advantage. 2NC counterplans out of straight turns are probably somewhat bad (Still worth saying, just not as your only answer).
PIC/Ks - aff should be able to defend their plan/advocacy, other pics are debatable.
Perm do the CP is good against process CPs, Default to reject the arg except for condo. International fiat probably bad, multi actor is debatable. Theory args like consult bad are best used as a justification for PDCP. Perm do both needs a net benefit, often a solvency deficit, please compare this with the DAs to the perm.
Yes judge kick, I will do so for the neg if it helps them.

DA/Case - I evaluate probabilistically, so unlikely to win zero risk unless major drop. Default to uniqueness controlling link. Threshold for thumpers is determined by the broadest link argument extended, so if you have a more specific link it can backfire to extend the more general one.
Case debate good, do it more. UQ is a squo solves/solvency deficit unless paired with theory.
I follow politics quite closely, so if you mess up the swing votes on your ptx DA I will be annoyed.

Impact framing - Risk = Magnitude x Probability, so structural violence can outweigh. probability is usually determined based on how well it is debated. Lean 10% chance of 99% dead outweighs 1% risk of 100% dead, but needs an explanation.

she/her

i have inflitrated the minnesota circuit to spread derrick rose propaganda. #1 drose supporter here!!

1		D. Rose	2008-09	CHI	81	37.0	16.8	3.9	6.3	0.8	0.2	7.1	14.9	47.5	0.2	0.9	22.2	2.4	3.1	78.8	51.6	1.2	2.7	2.5	3,000	1,361	317	512	66	18	202	125	-121
2		D. Rose	2009-10	CHI	78	36.8	20.8	3.8	6.0	0.7	0.3	8.6	17.6	48.9	0.2	0.8	26.7	3.3	4.3	76.6	53.2	0.8	2.9	2.8	2,871	1,619	293	469	57	27	217	96	-37
3		D. Rose	2010-11	CHI	81	37.4	25.0	4.1	7.7	1.0	0.6	8.8	19.7	44.5	1.6	4.8	33.2	5.9	6.9	85.8	55.0	1.0	3.1	3.4	3,026	2,026	330	623	85	51	278	136	+498
4		D. Rose	2011-12	CHI	39	35.3	21.8	3.4	7.9	0.9	0.7	7.7	17.8	43.5	1.4	4.4	31.2	5.0	6.1	81.2	53.2	0.7	2.7	3.1	1,375	852	131	307	35	28	119	52	+289
5		D. Rose	2013-14	CHI	10	31.1	15.9	3.2	4.3	0.5	0.1	5.8	16.4	35.4	1.6	4.7	34.0	2.7	3.2	84.4	44.6	0.9	2.3	3.4	311	159	32	43	5	1	34	15	-33
6		D. Rose	2014-15	CHI	51	30.0	17.7	3.2	4.9	0.7	0.3	6.6	16.4	40.5	1.5	5.3	28.0	3.0	3.7	81.3	49.3	0.7	2.5	3.2	1,530	904	161	251	36	16	161	63	+122
7		D. Rose	2015-16	CHI	66	31.8	16.4	3.4	4.7	0.7	0.2	6.8	15.9	42.7	0.7	2.3	29.3	2.2	2.7	79.3	47.9	0.7	2.7	2.7	2,097	1,080	225	311	44	14	175	84	-166

if drose shows up with a signed autograph of his #1 bulls jersey I will give you the ballot and 30 speaks. Make it happen please!

please add jfrese016@gmail.com to the email chain

I am a coach at Washburn Highschool where I have been working since 2021.

I debated for a total of 6 years before I decided to stop debating. 4 were in high school at Glenbrook South and 2 at the University of Minnesota. I have qualified for the TOC once and the NDT twice

TLDR

I don't really have much to say in this paradigm I have previously had long paradigms that explained my view of each argument, but, I dont think that provided anything useful because the way you debate is a stylistic choice and I don't think judges should have a preference on what styles they vote for. It is my job as a judge to evaluate the flow and vote for which ever team I think wins the round. I will vote for any argument (excluding arguments that make the debate space harmful as I won't ignore my role is as an educator).

Ks--i really like these they are useful education that should be discussed in the debate space. I will vote on framework because I think the debate about framework is a useful conversation to have (how should our engagement with debate operate is a useful question and one that I really like).

Policy--this is the style i debated. i really like these I don't know if there is much more to say. I mean DAs, Ts, CPs, Turns, all are good.

Condo--I think that condo is fine but Ill vote for condo bad even against 1 condo if you win it.

If u want to read my full views of debate they are here

My experience is one mainly as debating policy, however, my more recent experience coaching have left me more focused on critical arguments, mainly the cap k and set col while also adding in a role as an educator inside of the space. I don't think that it should be up to the judges to determine the stylistic decisions they vote on it should be the argumentation. That said I won't vote for arguments that make the debate space harmful.

Kritiks

I typically think of kritiks as coming in a couple forms. One that focuses a criticism on the framework of debate or one that focuses more on an alternative. These are both very strong and I understand the strategic choice of keeping routes open, but, by the end of the debate I think that having the time to spend constructing a specific route is more sucessful than trying to keep all options open. It is much more persuasive if all the arguments you chose to go for use a similar foundation. This is extremely useful because if you spent so much time winning framework it will make certain case arguments, certain links better.

If you are debating against a kritik what helped me was trying to identify the route the neg's k takes and having a plan for each of these avenues. I think it really depends on the aff, but there are a few strategies against Ks. By strategies I mean what is the focus of the 2ar win on, because you should still have everything covered as much as it needs to.

-Perm, no-link--it is important to have a net benefit to the perm which can be alt fails, cede the ptx, the advantage, ect.

-Framework, extinction outweighs, alt fails--it is important to think through the implication of you winning framework. There are some Ks where they will just lose while other Ks have strong alts and impacts.

CPs

I am a fan of CPs. I don’t really have any leaning way I believe. I think theory typically isn’t the best strategy not because I won’t vote on it but unless the CP is really cheating then it typically is just easier for the neg to defend theory.

This is where I spent a lot of my time in debate doing coming up with cps.

DAs

I love DAs. The bad ones the good ones whatever da you want. I feel like this isn’t controversial.

T

I am a very good judge for T if you are ready on the tech level. I will peetty easially pull the trigger on less viable T violations if you are just ahead. I really like the focus being put on the implications of how debate would work.

This is also where I spent most of my time debating

He/Him

Minneapolis South

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

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

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

General Debate Philosophy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging Process:

During the debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I decide the debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Please read in a way where I could understand it

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

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

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

The rest of it:

Ask me about my judging record:

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

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

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

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

• Procedural arguments are exclusion

What are your argument preferences?

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

Feel free to post round or email me for feedback:

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

Minnesota Teams/regional teams without much national circuit exposure:

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

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

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

he/him

Debated Policy at Highland Park in Saint Paul for 4 years

Also debated 4 years of parli in college lol

Retired coach for Highland Park

put me on the chain - ziglaser@gmail.com

NOVICE ONLY

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

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

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

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

General Stuff

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

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

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

+5 speaks for Jake Swede metaphors or anecdotes.

Neg Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aff stuff

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

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

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

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

Definitely Unironic Personal Beliefs

???? Bowties are cool ????

???? Cap Good ????

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

???? God is Dead ????

For the email chain: please put the tournament, round number, affirmative team, and negative team in the subject line, it makes organization and scouting easier. College rounds: Please put debatedocs@googlegroups.com (not my personal email, not the UMich email account with a similar name) on the email chain for me.

If you have questions: don't email debatedocs, email mjgranstrom@gmail.com. Please do not put this on the email chain: I want a clean email inbox, and I will immediately forward the email chain to debatedocs and then delete it. Please save me the effort.

You have my consent to record/stream/publish the round (obviously pending the consent of other participants). Here is my policy judging record, with a brief summary of each round and decision.

I dislike time-wasting and other unprofessional conduct. I strongly dislike kritiks, and in general only vote on them when the risk of the affirmative's impacts is zeroed by external case defense. I dislike argumentative cowardice: making incomplete arguments for strategic reasons, evasiveness in cross-examination, opacity in disclosure, making an argument in a speech and then walking it back immediately afterwards in cross-examination.

I am a very expressive judge -- if I look confused during your speech, you have confused me; if I look frustrated during your speech, it is probably your fault; if I laugh when you make an argument it is not because I will not vote on it, it is because the argument is funny.

I am bad at evaluating topicality debates, this is a skill at which I have been actively seeking to improve. I am confident I am in the top five percent of all judges for topicality against kritikal affirmatives: I have yet to hear a persuasive answer to 'read it on the negative.' I am not bothered by arguments in favor of human extinction or nuclear war or global warming or whatever other 'reprehensible' impacts -- There is a clear difference between the abstract 'the human species is net-harmful' and the concrete 'you, my opponent, have no moral worth.' I am a very cheap date for try-or-die.

I am more persuaded by 'elegant' or 'logical' theory interpretations than those that feel 'arbitrary' or 'contrived': Interpretations like "4 conditional counterplans" or "two counterplans and one kritik" feel much less defensible to me than "arbitrarily many conditional counterplans," or "zero conditional counterplans". The number of conditional advocacies introduced in a debate has no meaningful effect on my willingness to vote on theory -- You are neither made safe by reading only one conditional counterplan nor doomed to a loss for reading a five-plank separable advantage counterplan, four cardless uniqueness counterplans, three process counterplans, two critiques, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Non-negotiables:

I will flow on paper with my laptop closed (for INP debates) -- This means 1: I will need pen time at the top of pages, between short analytic arguments like permutations, and in theory debates; 2: I will be displeased if an argument is debated on different pieces of paper in each speech (i.e. a DA and the case page where the aff preempts the DA), 3: I have little sympathy for debaters asking for a 'marked doc' or asking which arguments were and were not read, and 4: I might ask for marks myself at the tail end of speeches, especially if many cards were marked.

I will not evaluate evidence published in a foreign language unless it has been translated by somebody outside the debate community.

I will evaluate evidence that was inserted but not read only if the mere existence of the evidence constitutes a warrant -- this is frequently (but not exclusively) the case for caselists in topicality and counterplan competition debates.

The negative block contains one constructive and one rebuttal. Corollary 1: It isvery easy to persuade me to reject new arguments made in the first negative rebuttal. Corollary 2: It is very hard to persuade me arguments made in the second negative constructive should be thought of differently than arguments made in the first negative constructive. Corollary 3: Arguments made in the second negative constructive cannot be 'struck' by the first negative rebuttal.

A forfeit will occur if one side does not wish to debate. I will consult the tournament staff, if they award a forfeit/bye I will not submit a ballot. If I am instructed to submit a ballot, the side withdrawing from the debate will receive the minimum speaker points allowed. I will not participate in any arrangement to evade the forfeit procedures used by the tournament.

Competition rooms are public spaces, and spectators are welcome.

I will not evaluate either arguments about the conduct of the debaters that did not take place in the particular debate I am adjudicating or arguments about the conduct of community members not participating in the particular debate I am adjudicating. Do not feel burdened to respond to them.

Old energy thoughts:

I spent two years working in the (broad) electricity sector, but I have been much less involved in debate this year than in the past.

Old nukes thoughts:

It seems like the deterrence disadvantage has gone out of style since the last time we debated arms control. That's kind of sad.

Old personhood thoughts:

Plan texts should describe what the aff does. Plan texts should contain all of the things the affirmative wishes to fiat: If your solvency advocate calls for an insurance mandate, you probably already have enough offense against the PIC out of an insurance mandate to win without perm do the counterplan.

Old antitrust thoughts:

I have noticed that topicality interpretations seem exceedingly contrived and largely silly, and I don't know what is limiting this topic. I have noticed that in case-DA or counterplan-case-DA debates I vote negative an astounding amount of the time. This tells me that affirmative teams need 1) better 1ac answers to states and regs, 2) offense against net benefits, and 3) better case coverage in the 2ac.

Pet peeves:

Debaters should be flowing. There are no excuses for answering disadvantages that were in the doc but not read in the speech.

The number of conditional worlds available to the 2NR is two to the power of the number of advocacies introduced in the 1NC, not the factorial of that number.

All of the evidence you read in a debate should be formatted in the same way.

Put arguments in a useful order: If the first advantage has two scenarios, answer scenario 1 then scenario 2. If the 1AC has a solvency page, put circumvention there rather than on whichever advantage you take first.

A performative contradiction is never an independent voting issue -- it is either a double-turn (in which case a team can concede both halves and win) or a result of the introduction of a conditional advocacy (see above).

The speech doc is not a record of what happened in the round, it is a tool to share evidence. Failing to send evidence you read is a problem, failing to read evidence you sent is not.

You are all adults who grew up in an online world. Sending an email should be utterly trivial.

Varsity debaters who pretend not to understand basic debate concepts (fiat, cp status, etc) to stall in CX will earn 25s.

Policy Debate Makes Me Proud To Be An American.

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his--call me Josh

I am beginning to judge events other than policy, but I have almost zero experience with different forms of debate. Because of this, I will judge LD like 1v1 policy. For my CARD paradigm, jump to the bottom of my paradigm.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

Personal information:

School conflicts (my affiliation): Minnesota (debater/coach), Glenbrook North (debater), Como Park (coach)

I am not sure if this is appropriate to have in my paradigm but I think it's relevant when we live in a country whose future is so unsure and bleak. I have become increasingly disillusioned and cynical about positive (federal government) changes in real life. I do think that the USFG could and should be doing various things to make life on this planet for all people better, but the reality is quite the opposite. Questions about how the current government can be trusted to do anything "good" are constantly swirling in my head. Fiat likely solves most of these concerns in-round but I do wonder what my actual threshold is when it comes to solvency/circumvention questions because it seems debaters of any skill levels are reluctant to go for these types of arguments in the final rebuttals.

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

For online debates, please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. Solid audio quality is important, so I recommend using a headset or microphone.

The most important thing in this paradigm:

Please slow down (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

The second most important thing in this paradigm:

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another instead of simply in vacuums.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech---------------x--------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it.

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory----------------------------------------x----- Substance -- condo is the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose". I am a poor judge for reasons to reject the team that relate to personal or out-of-round reasons.

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad. Also, answer the case, please.

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates.

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. If you don't have good decorum, e.g. you are hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist, etc. I will certainly dock your speaks.

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground. I'm a 2N at heart.

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright.

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

Speaks:

I try to give out speaker points that represent how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, using footnotes instead of citing evidence in a card format like debaters have been doing forever, 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped), new args and extrapolations in the rebuttals, late-breaking debates, and assuming I know topic acronyms and jargon.

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. clean energy and IP. Ultimately, I feel that the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves many other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses.This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game. This framing structures how I view "T/FW = violent" and "policy debate is irredeemable" types of arguments. I am usually unconvinced by those args because saying you should read a topical plan doesn't meet the threshold of violence for me, and if policy debate was indeed irredeemable, I wouldn't be in the back of the room judging you.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

CARD paradigm:

Background: I was a policy debater in both high school and college. I have coached policy and CARD debate at the University of Minnesota for 4 years.

My role as a judge: CARD is a cool format because it simplifies the most tasking aspect of policy debate, open-ended research, so debaters can focus on improving their argumentation and public speaking skills. My RoJ is that of an educator first and a critic of arguments second. I will also vote for the team that does the best debating.

Specific argument preferences: The aff should defend a topical plan and the neg has the burden of rejoinder (AKA proving that the status quo or competitive alternative is better than passing the plan). The neg can read whatever DAs, CPs, Ks, and case answers they want, assuming they come from the library. T is iffy in this format and should only be brought up if the aff doesn't defend a plan or reads a plan very clearly not under the resolution. Theory is often a tough sell in this format, although I am down to vote on disclosure theory and condo.

Judge intervention: I will try not to intervene in the debate. Things that cross this line include threats of violence to other debaters, blatant racism, sexism, ableism, etc., reading an aff without a plan text, and reading evidence outside of the library. If any of these things come up, I reserve the right to end the debate and give the offending team a loss.

Opinions on this topic: Critiques of capitalism are by far the best arguments the neg can deploy on this topic. The LNG DA is likely a close second.

Hi, my name is Teddy! I am currently the JV/Varsity coach at Tartan Senior High School and the Head Coach at John Glenn Middle School. I've been coaching Policy Debate in some capacity for the past 4 years. I've also coached/judged LD, PF, and various speech events. I debated in high school for 2 years and college for 3.

Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com

Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood, & Nukes

Topics coached: Water, NATO, Fiscal Redistro, IPR, & Arctic

Paradigm:

I think that debate is a game which tests hypothetical actions aimed at resolving problems outlined by the resolution and/or the 1AC--the affirmative should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the negative is to disprove the 1AC. I generally default to tech over truth, but I can be persuaded to adopt an alternative lens as long as it's substantiated.

I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K if it's been articulated as a disadvantage to the 1AC. I don't think I'm the best judge for theory debates--slow down your spreading and send out your blocks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters.

If you're an LDer reading this paradigm, all of what I said above/below still holds true to the way that I'm going to evaluate your rounds.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me if it's graphic/describing traumatic situations.I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).

Hi! I'm Kate and my pronouns are she/her. You can contact me or add me to the email chain at knozal@macalester.edu

Some background info for you:

I debated for Rosemount 2017-2021 and I have coached at Highland Park (St. Paul) since 2021. I am currently studying sociology and data science at Macalester College. I pretty much judge on the local Minnesota circuit, Blake will be the one exception this year.

If I'm your judge:

First, I want you to enjoy debating and feel comfortable. If there is a way I can support you please don't hesitate to reach out beforehand or whenever a concern arises. I also really value education and I hope you do too. It will make me happy to see you doing your best to learn for yourself, and with your partner and opponents.

Second, I am looking for you to write the ballot for me in your last rebuttal. I don't want to have to do any work for debaters when writing my rfd so if you provide me with a clear way to evaluate impacts and how to resolve the round you will be in a great spot. With that being said, I vote off my flow but I'm not perfect, so it's your job to tell me where and what you want on my flow (aka signposting and clarity of speech are important). Tbh, I don't enjoy tricks or out spreading your opponent. I think the best rounds are when debaters are making smart and competitive choices but also considering others in the round and how you conduct yourself affects the community.

Other info about me as a judge:

As far as argument-specific questions go please feel free to reach out to me by email and I'll respond as soon as I can. My best advice to you is to read what you want to! Debates are way more fun when debaters care about and write their own arguments. When I was in high school I went for Ks on the aff and neg.

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School

Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)

Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)

4x NDT Qualifier

Octas of CEDA '24

Winner of the 2024 NDI Demo Debate <3

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

TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good.

I will never vote on an argument based on something that happened out of round. I have no context, it feels too much like policing, and it is a shameful use of my ballot. Introducing arguments like this will be met with a 25 and L, introducing arguments like this that pertain to an individual not present in the round (other debater on their team / coach) will be met with a 20 and L. We will never be able to fully remedy issues in a debate round that is filtered through competitive incentives. Trying to rectify these issues out of round, where discussions are more than 9 or 6 minutes of screaming into laptops and the responsible admin and coaches on your team are present, seems like the best way to go. This includes the pre-round if I am not present. However if something happens in round, you can call them out or stake the debate on it. Also, if you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good, strike me. Goodness gracious!

If you ask for a 30 you will receive a 25.

I flow on paper.

I am colorblind and can’t read poop. Please do not send PDFs or cards in the body of an email. If you do this you get a 25.

Idk what this moral panic about not sending analytics is about. You don't have to send them.

Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.

---

Policy things:

Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.

T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.

CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.

Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.

Do evidence comparison.One good card puts you in a much better spot than 4 stinky ones. Having high quality authors, writing one warrant after another, is preferable to a bunch of one paragraph cards riddled with disconnected word salad.

I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn or praying.

K’s? You would be far better off reading a DA or CP. I am inclined to weigh the AFF. The Top Gun anthem was in my top 10 on Spotify Wrapped. Those are my vibes.

I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.

I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.

Tech over truth.

Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.

Claws out, however you wish to debate.

I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP versus 2 is quite high. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks (if they're good flows).

Speaks? 29.5+ means I expect to see you in deep elims. 29-.4 means I think you’ll be in doubles. 28.5-9 means I think you’ll be in a bubble round. 28-.4 means I think you’ll break even or above. 27x means there are some things I think you can work on.

---

"And he to me, as one experienced:

'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,

all cowardice must here be extinct.

We to the place have come, where I have told thee/

Thou shalt behold the people dolorous

Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"

Cringe!

Debate History:

4 years debating in Wisconsin from 1999-2003.

Coaching @ Washington Technology Magnet School in Saint Paul since 2013.

First off - yes, you can tag team so long as it doesn't turn into a yelling fight.

Generally, I take points off for using too much speech time, not using all your time, being overly aggressive without warrant during CX, saying things that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

In the old days, I would have just called myself TABS (Tabula Rosa, or blank slate.) In general, I'm comfortable voting on most kinds of arguments, although I often find myself deciding many JV and V rounds on framework due to a lack of clash elsewhere in the debate.

My background is in Chemistry and Physics, so I have at best a debate level knowledge of much of the K literature. That being said, I'm very comfortable with the technical aspects of debate, so label your arguments well and explain yourself in your rebuttals and I should have a good idea about what is going on. That said, I'm sensitive to punching down, so if you have a "funny" aff be careful that it is also respectful.

Absolutes & Intervention

Procedural fairness is good. The AFF has to say "the topic is true" and the NEG has to say "the AFF has failed to prove the topic is true". I'll intervene against arguments outside those bounds (most critiques) at my discretion. I will not vote on theory violations (like "conditionality bad") but will consider other remedies if proposed (like "reject the argument").

Arguments that are repugnant, absurd, and/or grounded in philosophy are fair game if they relate to whether the AFF's advocacy is true (death good, overpopulation DA, libertarianism, "we're all going to die unless we immediately lob ICBMs at foreign people", moral skepticism, etc).

Cards translated from foreign languages by debate people and/or from email threads with debate people do not count.

I will strike new arguments as identified by the debaters (except for the 2AR, which I will police myself). Many arguments introduced in the rebuttals are wholly illegitimate and should instead be introduced in the constructives (including new DA impacts / links, "our impact turns theirs", and "extinction first").

I flow on paper (including evidence text) and don't read along during speeches. Many varsity constructives are too fast to be reasonably evaluated. I'm unconfident judging teams that both speak at top speed and refrain from numbering case and off-case answers.

Professionalism (being civil during cross-examination, not delaying the debate for bathroom/water breaks, not preventing people from observing the debate or scouting evidence documents) is relevant to assigning speaker points. Other than that, I care about general flowability.

Please add debatedocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain.

Defaults & Leanings

I prefer when competitors flow on paper and don't use a laptop during the final rebuttal.

Debaters should spend more time litigating what arguments are new/legitimate. I prefer "it's new, scratch it" to "it's new, we get new answers", though hedging your bets sometimes makes sense.

I enjoy evaluating nuanced counterplan competition debates. "Must be both functionally and textually competitive" seems like a fair standard. I'm favorable to letting counterplans compete off words in the topic that aren't in the plan.

The NEG can win solely on defense, including on traditional stock issues presses. Please contextualize some minimum threshold the AFF does not meet.

When topicality debates are framed as a choice between 'correctness' (in terms of what the resolution most likely means in a vacuum, read by a knowledgeable non-debate person) and 'debatability' (in terms of how the resolution could be construed to encourage worthwhile debates, based on observations about topic development during the season), I tend to think the former is more important than the latter.

Fan of just going for the politics DA and case defense.

Justifications for "alternate actor" counterplans (especially critique "alternatives") are unintuitive to me. If the reason that federal action is necessary is because the states aren't doing anything, how does "the states should act!" rejoin the AFF?

I think many of the analytic philosophy arguments common in Lincoln-Douglas debate are just as relevant in policy debate. What does "should" mean?

People should put up far more of a fight against "miniscule risk of extinction outweighs all other concerns because the potential loss of infinite utilitarian value multiplied by a miniscule probability is still an infinite risk". Seems like there's lots of diverse and interesting criticisms of this out there.

Background & Thoughts On Debate

I debated for the University of Minnesota and graduated in 2022. I did a year of local Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school. My initial and formative exposure to policy debate was from manuals and documentaries produced in the 90s and early 2000s. My interest in these materials was the primary reason I decided to do policy debate in college despite lacking any high school experience in the event. The activity is very different from how I expected it would be.

Policy debate seems cool because it emphasizes in-depth, technical discussion of literature about specific policy proposals as opposed to the general appeal of broader political ideas in a vacuum. If you want diverse and abstract topics, a focus on extemporaneous argument generation, and no requirement for formal presentation of evidence, why not do parliamentary debate like the rest of the world? Policy Debate Makes Me Proud To Be An American.

"I will vote on anything" and "dead inside" paradigms do not make sense to me and I don't believe them. I don't think carve-outs for "ad hominems" are categorically different than carve-outs for critiques, conditional advocacies, or offensive arguments. "The 1AC's representations are a manifestation of settler-colonialism, vote NEG to decolonize your mind" seems just as relevant as "my opponent is a bad person".

2014-18, Eagan HS MN

2018-19, Concordia College Debate (RIP)

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

Qualified NDT years: 2019-2020 (RIPx2)

Pronouns: She/Her

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

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

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

Personal Background

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

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

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

In short, almost* anything goes

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

CP

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

DA

Does anyone even have controversial opinions on these?

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

K

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

Framework/"T"

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

in short, I reward tenacity.

Aff

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

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

Random thoughts

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

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

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

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

local non-circuit POLICY MN tournaments only

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

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

Minigame

because debate should be fun here's a game

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

In-Round Etiquette

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

4 years (2016-2020) of high school policy debate for highland park (mn) (and 3 years of middle school debate :-) )

Put me on the email chain: snowbeckdebate [at] gmail.com

In general: If you win it I'll vote on it. I was a very policy-leaning debater so I am probably somewhat biased towards those types of args but am open to hearing whatever you run best! I like being nice to your opponents and partner, I care about ev quality. Signpost, be clear. Speed is fine. This will be my first time judging on the NATO topic so I don't have a lot of topic knowledge. As such, stay away from buzzwords.

CPs: Yes please! Cut CPs from the aff's ev, run Cps without solvency advocates if they're smart, run Cps with net benefits (<3). Probably the best 2NR in front of me is going to be CP + DA or a CP with an internal nb. Please have a reason your agent CP is a) competitive and b) uniquely BETTER than the aff. I am willing to flow and vote on cheat-y CPs, but you do have to win the theory flow.

DAs: nothing really new to say on the subject. Run them well.

Topicality: A necessary part of debate to check squirmy affs. Impact out your voters.

Ks: The interaction between the aff and the alt needs to be clear. The links need to be clear and specific -- show your understanding of how the aff causes the impacts. Explain how the alt functions. Stay away from the abstract when discussing your impacts - what is happening in this round that is problematic and what does your model of the world do to stop hurting people. Have impact D for the aff if you're running a reps k. I'm not super familiar with Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc so be sure to explain it for real.

K affs: If the aff is in the direction of the topic you're in a better spot. Affs that you can run topic disads and CPs against are going to have an easier time winning framework. Negs, run counterplans and contest the core of the aff - look through their ev.

Theory: Unless there is clear in-round abuse, I will likely reject the arg and not the team if you win it. (If you make a good case for rejecting the team I'll obviously vote on it, I'm not going to do work for any team, but saying "reject the team" without impacting it out isn't enough). I will vote on well-run disclosure theory, especially if you ask for disclosure preround and they refuse. This goes for new affs too, btw: tell the other team what your plan text and advantages are.

Speaks: be nice. please. if you are rude to your opponent your speaks will be very skinny indeed. if you are racist, sexist, or homophobic, you will get the lowest speaks tab lets me award. Depending on the degree of the transgression I reserve the right to stop the round. I am good with speed. Golden rules: Have a different voice for tags/analytics and text of cards. Be clear on tags/analytics.

Debate is a game but it's a very valuable one. It should be fun, constructive, informative, and pleasant!

Head Coach for St. Paul Central(MN) from 2021(water topic)->present

Pronouns are they/she

I would like to be on the email chain @ stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Email for questions/contact @ marshall.d.steele@gmail.com

For 24-25 --- Serving as Program Development Fellow at the MNUDL so judging a little less than past years on local circuit

---------------------------

Used to have a much longer paradigm but I'd rather just give some short thoughts on debate and have y'all debate whatever you want. I appreciate good judge instructions and am neutral on most arguments. My fav debates are usually KvK but I'm down for whatever and I always like creative args/stuff I can tell you put a lot of time into making. Will vote on just about anything that isn't you being overtly hostile to your opponents.If you just wanna know my K aff thoughts I will happily vote on em and find those debates very interesting. As a default I wont check speech docs until the end of the round so clarity is your friend on blocks. I am mostly a clash judge but will still consider/would like to see good 2R top level conceptualization of the round. I value technical drops and all that fun clash debate stuff, it's just to say that actual persuasive argumentation and analysis are probably very important.

slow down for dense analytic blocks especially / fw / theory. If you want me to flow every warrant you should probably not be going at the pace and intonation of the body of a card.

Don't have strong preferences about how you refer to me but "Judge" or "marshall" are always good defaults

---------------------------

Random Notes

Plan flaws are awesome and under-utilized

Don't insult your opponents

Prep stealing is not epic

how is farm bill still a DA - this was "Unique" when I started debating(I don't actually care if you read farm bill)

A CP without cards for solvency advocates probably doesn't require cards for each solvency indict, doing so is taking the time skew bait

CX is binding

prob ask if you wanna read a spec arg

Let's all have a good time and learn some stuff. Do what you feel you are best at and try to emphasize clash. Specific questions can be directed here: swedej@augsburg.edu

Very important note: If you and your partner choose to do tag team debate then you must "tag in" if you want to ask a question and "tag out" when you're done asking questions. How you tag is up to you (high five, fist bump, etc.), but you must do it.

Other notes:

I've been in debate for 21 years - have debated, judged, and coached at regional and national tournaments in high school and used to compete for the UofMN in college, now am Program Manager of the MNUDL. I'll do my best to flow, you should do your best to signpost and clearly read tags and cites. I judge about 10-15 national level high school debates a year. I want to be included on the email chain so I can check for clipping and/or whether a team claims they read something they did or didn't, but my flow will reflect what words come out of your mouth, not what words are in your speech doc. If you want an argument on my flow then make sure you are being clear and articulate; speed isn't a problem for me, but being unclear is. I'll let you know if I can't understand you at least 3 times. At that point if you don't adapt it's your problem :) I will do my best to judge debates in a non-biased way and give you a decision/feedback that I would have liked to have had as a debater/coach.

One other note that hopefully won't be important, if there's a reason that something uncommon needs to happen in a debate (someone needs to take a break due to stress/anxiety/fatigue, there needs to be an accommodation, you or someone else can't debate against another debater or in front of another judge, etc.) please let me know BEFORE THE DEBATE and don't bring it up as a theory argument (unless the other team did something warranting it during the debate). I find it is best to deal with community based issues not through a competitive lens, but through a community consensus and mindfulness model. Be advised, I take issues like this very seriously, so if you bring up something like this in the debate I will decide the outcome of the debate on this point and nothing else. Legitimate reasons are fine and important, but trying to 'game' the system with these kinds of 'ethics' violations will end very poorly for everyone involved.

Updated - 1/4/24

Background: I debated in high school at Minneapolis South and in college at the University of Minnesota '17. I've coached policy debate for 10 years, and am currently the Head Coach of Minneapolis South high school.

If you have any questions about my paradigm/rfd/comments, feel free to email me at: tauringtraxler@gmail.com & also use this to put me on email chains, please and thank you.

I will enforce the tournament rules (speech times/prep/winner and loser, etc.), but the content of the round as well as how I evaluate the content is up to the debaters. Judge instruction is important -- my role is to decide who did the better debating, what determines that is up to you.

I'm comfortable with anything you want to do in debate as long as you're respectful of others. I give a lot of nonverbal feedback.

Please make sense of your arguments and ask for a ballot. I want to do the least work possible as a judge to determine an rfd.

10+ years as a judge. Debate is a game among other things. At this point, I'm pretty soulless and I don't know what more to say than that. The rounds that I enjoy the most are well organized and the debaters attempt to inform clear decisions on how the game should be won.

Fine with all kinds of debate and arguments