I value coherence over speed. The most persuasive team will argue their side has the greatest impact and counterpoint their opponents arguments to demonstrate this.

I am a firm believer in clear and organized contentions with strong evidence to back your ideas. It will go well with me if you have specific impacts that you return to throughout the round. During rebuttal and later speeches, I appreciate an emphasis on why your contentions/impacts are stronger than your opponents' based on evidence and clear logic.

I also appreciate respectful, polite debate where everyone is treated well and debaters avoid being rude.

I am a parent judge with limited debate experience, but significant experience in speech competition. I am looking for exemplary delivery, coherence of presentation and passion for the topic. Please do not speak too quickly. Be kind, and enjoy yourselves.

I am a lay judge. I prefer to have speakers speak slowly rather than really fast and to sign post their arguments and to keep their own times.

I was a 4 year policy debater for Sioux Falls Roosevelt from 2016-20. Had a lot of success both in state and on the national circuit, and always prefered circuit arguments and styles. I went on to earn my B.S.B. in Finance from the University of Minnesota.

Quick things for all formats
- Speed is fine, but if you spread analytics I will only evaluate what is on my flow
- Ask me if you have questions
- No prep for email/flashing
- Include me in the e-mail chain/flash drive exchange (jaxonkroger@gmail.com)
- Tag team CX is acceptable, but partner's shouldn't dominate it
- In your last speech you should probably not go for everything
- Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments
- You can be aggressive, but don't be mean

You need to flesh out your arguments, dive deeper and give me the warrants!!!!

PF NOTES AFTER POLICY

POLICY

Theory (+Topicality)

Nobody likes a judge who doesn't evaluate theory. I’ve voted on it and I've ran it. It has to be developed and it has to dive deep into the standards. The claim needs to be legit. I generally default to competing interpretations unless convinced otherwise. Have offense against their interpretation and use the standards to prove substance to your theoretical objection. If you go for theory in any sense of the word, tell me whether it’s a reason to reject the team or argument and provide offense for that. If you close on theory, you should spend at least 4 minutes on it

On conditionality: 1 is fine--2 is fine--3 is fine--4 gives you a claim

Disadvantages

Link story is usually the largest uphill battle, so you should probably have more than one link
Specific links are good links
Disad turns case is important
Risk of uniqueness is a thing
Link turns need uniqueness to be offense

UQ DAs are always easier to win on than generic pltx

CPs

CP's are strategic and should be used often. Ones that are specific to the aff are even better.

Court CPs- need a test case

AFF- must explain how the perm functions (saying Perm:do both and moving on will not be weighed)

Kritiks

Kritiks are litty. I ran Setcol affs and neg strats where we always closed on the K in my junior year. Senior year I ran Puar/Queer theory. I am fairly familiar with other Ks like afropes, neolib, cap, Deleuze. But I may not know your K, and even if I do- always debate as if I don't know the jargon. If I don't understand the K, that's on you...not me. That effect is x10 when you spread. Ive come to the point in my career I believe that unless both sides spread very efficiently then education is lost. We (debaters) use spreading as a competitive tool to get "gotcha moments" that hurts quality education. Cover the entire K, the impacts of it, the alt level, the terms, etc. Flesh that stuff out. If you're neg don't read more than one K, I believe it takes away the significance and impacts of it. If it is an identity K, you probably have to close on it or I will have a hard time voting for you. Aff teams should use kicked Ks to run theory or framework. K vs K rounds can get confusing FAST, thus meaning give me an easy way to vote for your K.

Tech>Truth (unless blatantly racist, homophobic, etc.)

Framework

I hate evaluating these rounds. I usually default to offense/defense and vote for the team that did the best debating. Any shift from this framework usually requires a team who is doing the best debating anyway. That said, framework is a winning strategy, just dive deep into impacts, etc. Do your best to tell me why your framework is best for debate.

STUFF FOR PF

4 year policy debater so I evaluate args more like a policy debater

I can't evaluate what's not on my flow

OFFENSE, OFFENSE, OFFENSE!!!!

Clash matters -- do not run away from your opponent's arguments

I'm a flow judge

If 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, then 1st summary doesn't have to extend defense

Tag line extensions aren't enough

Collapse the round and focus on less things in the last 2 speeches

Please give me impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude, etc)

Weigh your impact against the opponents' impacts!

Contextualize your arguments to the rounds!

LD

Will evaluate any argument but might not know the lingo or content of your particular argument so please make sure you're explaining your side

Can probs read my sections for CX to get more info on my preferences

How I judge

I am a flow/tech judge and I will vote off of the flow. I'm tech > truth, but the crazier an argument gets the threshold for a good response to it drops. Here are the important points for me:

1. Do comparative analysis: Too often, teams make polar opposite claims without any analysis on which to prefer. Competing warrants without any argument about which one to side with just cancel out. On any point of clash in the round, do analysis on why what you say about it beats what your opponent says.

2. Warrants are infinitely more important than evidence: A card isn't needed for every sentence, and evidence doesn't mean much without logic behind it. Good warrants beat bad evidence every time. Evidence should support the argument, not the other way around.

3. Please collapse: the round naturally evolves from a 4 minute speech to a 2 minute final focus. Quality of arguments beats quantity, so pick your most important argument, explain it well, and argue why it is more important than everything else in the round.

That's really all you need to know but here are some more specifics.

Rebuttal

Second rebuttal must frontline contentions you are collapsing on and respond to offense from first rebuttal. (In general for me, anything not responded to in the following speech is conceded)

You are allowed to read uncarded responses. If something doesn't make logical sense, say so!

Summary

If both teams have standing offense make sure to weigh to tell me why your arguments are most important. Weigh on both the link and impact level.

Extensions - Make sure to extend the full argument (uniqueness, links, and impacts).

Collapsing - It's always best to pick your strongest argument and explain why that one argument is the most important in the round. You can definitely have multiple pieces of offense, but quality of arguments > quantity.

Final Focus

Nothing can be in final focus that wasn't in summary, unless you are responding to something brand new in the previous speech. (First final can have some new weighing)

Mirroring summary - Final focus should be a shorter version of summary. (Extend your arguments, respond to your opponents, weigh, etc.)

Evidence

Sharing evidence - Email chains and card sharing docs are the best, so debaters can send cut cards and don't have to deal with paywalls or searching through long articles.

Producing evidence - Please have cut cards. Debaters should not have to spend prep searching through what their opponents send to find the part they read. If evidence cannot be produced it is dropped from the round, and if all that gets produced is an article or pdf without the part that was read, the evidence is dropped from the round.

Paraphrasing - Paraphrasing is fine if you do it properly.

Evidence Ethics - If any evidence is misconstrued, your speaks will be tanked, and you'll have a much harder time winning my ballot. Depending on the severity of it, I might drop whoever misconstrued the evidence.

Quality - Good warrants always beat bad evidence. If one uncredible source says something, it is not automatically true.

Speed

I can handle PF fast however nothing close to a full policy spread. Do not go faster than your opponents can handle.

Progressive Arguments

I couldn't care less about wether or not you paraphrase or disclose. Part of the value of the activity is arguing about topics that are important beyond the debate world. Ks can be educational but I probably won't follow them.

SDSU Microbiology

Competed in Pf Junior and Senior year as well as some Policy in SD

Okay with speed as long as you’re not cutting corners in explanations, please slow down when naming cards/warrants or impacts and make sure your opponents are okay with speed as well

Spreading on your opponents to the point that they can't keep up is just plain rude, however I do like speed so please just ask if everyone is okay with it

Impact Calc/Weighing is important

ANY DROPPED TURNS WILL BE WEIGHED HEAVY

Please be respectful to your opponents

Question: What are the Curds doing?

Answer: "The Curds are just being curds"

Big fan of "off the road quick maps"

PLUS .1 speaks for any CBUM/Ronnie Coleman references (must be good tho)

not a fan of nuclear extinction debates- Im interested in hearing how nuclear tensions rising creates further impacts but not in how Putin waking up on the wrong side of the bed leads to global human extinction

Debated PF for 4 years in high school, Parliamentary for 2 years at Wellesley College.

Hi! Looking forward to fun debate rounds. Please be kind to your opponents and remember to flow and weigh your impacts for me.

My name is Jennifer Siefken. My son, Austin, participates in debate at Lakeville North High School. This is my first tournament as a debate judge. I am excited for the opportunity to judge and hear live debates.

Because this is my first tournament, it would helpful if you veered clear of the use of jargon. Also, your rate of speech will be better understood if you speak slower and clearly.

I encourage the debaters to clearly explain their reasoning using very clear language and expanded explanations. Good luck!

I debated several years at UNI. Most of my debating and judging experience is in Policy debate. I’m currently the coach at Ottumwa.

Clarity is important. So are impacts. So is being a decent person to everyone in the debate.

Really successful teams will spend time explaining how the impacts in the round interact with each other and how I should prioritize them. I have a hard time in any debate event voting on a theory or framework argument that doesn’t have an impact. “That argument isn’t allowed so you can’t vote for it” is weak sauce. Give me something about why it shouldn’t be allowed.

Everyone should participate in their cross-ex. If your partner needs help, that can be fine but they need a chance to do it on their own first.

I’m a stickler about time. If the timer goes off, you need to stop giving the speech. Stealing prep is sketchy. If you aren’t using all your speech time, you’d better be absolutely crushing the debate or it’ll show in your speaker points.

You can put me on the email chain: simonson.zd@gmail.com