I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

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

Background

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

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

Big Questions 2024

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

Sections/State 2024 Updates

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

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

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

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

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

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

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

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Non-negotiables

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

Traditional LD Paradigm

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

Background

Former head LD coach for Eagan High School (MN). Today I run Corporate Strategy for a Fortune 500 company and serve as an elected official.

How I Judge Debate

Clearly establish what the standard (ideally the criterion in LD) is to evaluate the round by. Then show why, using that standard, your arguments best achieve it. I'm fine if you use your own standard or link to your opponent's...the key is to make the clearest and most compelling case for why your side best achieves whatever standard we're going to use.

That things I find most compelling from debaters are:

- A clear logical case for how I should write my ballot (linking back to the standards and why your side best achieves it). My decisions are based on the flow, so the more strongly you can leverage what's on the flow to make the case that you've won the round the better chance you have for my ballot.

- Not just making an argument, but supporting it with analysis (what it means) and impact (why it's important to the round)

- Actual refutation. Being able to defeat the core logic of your opponent's argument is the single most powerful way to eliminate it from the round and will garner a very high speaker score. This can include showing why the evidence your opponent is using flawed.

I've been around debate since 2000 and have coached LD, PF, and Congress. I judge mainly at nat quals, sections, state, and nationals but attend/coach at roughly 15 tournaments during the season.

In all styles of debate, I want the debaters to move the debate forward. As a general rule, the debater who listens better wins. Too often, debaters are quick to attack taglines or one part of a warrant, but when they only do that, the savvy opponent notices and responds appropriately.

Whether I'm judging LD or PF, what I like to see in round are:

- A clear case advocating a position centered around a criterion (in LD) or framework (in PF). I'm fine with cases that don't have either, but I want to be able to vote for a story.

- Clear speaking- these are public speaking events so you should be clear. While I can handle speed, 95% it is utilized in front of me, it's unnecessary-- better case writing or argument selection would reduce the need.

- Arguments that can actually happen are stronger- so for example, an impact to nuclear war in a case involving college athletes getting paid could work, but I would probably but the argument with the straightest line to the resolution first. I think genocide and human extinction are bad too, but if you're making that argument, you're probably losing the flow.

- Flowing through ink is gross, avoid that OR tell me why it's okay why you're doing it.

- Non-responsive responses are not my favorite. If a warrant says xyz and you respond solely to x and your opponent calls you on it, your response will probably fall. Also, if you only respond to x, but your opponent tells me in their next speech why y and z matter, don't say they dropped your argument because they didn't. See again, the debater who listens the most wins the most.

- Give me reasons why you win. Voting issues or a strong crystallization will help you. Even if you lose 19 of the 20 arguments, convince me that your one argument outweighs.

- I don't like mean people. Be nice. I am a human. I judge as a human. If it is honestly a coin flip of who wins, I will almost exclusively go with the person who treated their opponent as a person rather than the mean person. Is that fair? No. Debate is subjective. But I'm trying to be as objective as possible.

- If you have questions, ask before a round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

she/her

I competed in LD for three years and have coached LD and Congress for three years at Forest Lake, currently head coach. I’m also a Lead Instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute.

**adding Jan 2022: I really think debaters ought to be distinguishing cards from their own words MUCH better: if you read a card and immediately head into analysis or summary without identifying that, it sure feels like you're trying to pass off those words as more qualified (which I think we've all normalized! but we shouldn't!) try: "quote...blah blah... end quote" or emphasizing "the impact is..".

The big stuff: debate is a great activity for learning, building confidence, etc but it can absolutely be exclusionary and replicate oppressive structures. There’s never an excuse for running harmful arguments that deny or perpetuate oppression. And be respectful — I probably think you’re being too aggressive in cross. You can ask questions before round, my answer is probably I don't care.

LD

I'm a pretty traditional judge, not going to be too tolerant to spreading, run things at your own risk.

Framework is super important to how I evaluate a round, so two things: 1) don’t just repeat “my framework is a prereq and better weighing mechanism” each speech. These aren’t good arguments, and I need you to show how the two frameworks interact and differ and actually respond to your opponent’s args. 2) and if you choose to make our lives easier by conceding, you should do a really good job weighing and providing impact analysis. I love some top-of- and end-of- speech framing.

Probably the only reason I’ll give below a 27 is if you’re being rude or offensive. Please use the pronouns your opponent has given via tab, or use gender neutral language. 29+ is I’m impressed with the way you handled arguments and framed the round.

Congress

I’d rather hear you give a mediocre speech on every bill than only one good speech, because that shows you’re trying and engaged in the chamber. That being said, a good speech should have well-explained arguments, impacts on why those arguments matter, and CLASH. The biggest things I write on ballots are a) why is this argument true? why does this matter? b) respond to other debaters in the chamber. The level of energy you bring to a speech absolutely changes the delivery, but I'm not going to comment on things like your physical presentation.

I coach speech and perviously coached debate at Eagan High School and am the librarian/media specialist there.

I enjoy debate, so I look forward to hearing your round!

In general you may want to know this about me:
I want to hear you debate about the resolution/legislation at hand. Theory is very rarely needed. I like to hear real world impacts, and I want to understand how your arguments will impact the lives of people. I have little interest in unique/trick/squirrel/non-topical arguments. Weighing is important...so give me a clear way to weigh a round. Delivery is important, so speak well and avoid speed at all costs. Speaking of speaking, there have been five times when I've given a 30 in my life, and the lowest end I've given was 10. In all situations the speaker points were earned. My typical range is 26-29. I rarely disclose and there will be no orals after the round. Finally and most importantly, have fun and debate with class.

Specifically, in terms of congressional debate: I'm probably going to vote for the best legislator. You should speak well...but not have canned speeches. You should show me you can speak in a variety of positions (author legislation, introduce arguments, refute arguments, and weigh/crystalize the round). You should advance your arguments through questions. You should use motions to advance/end debate when appropriate. You should play the role of a congressperson with the decorum it deserves. You are always on...even during recess. You should be a good person (don't be a jerk).

In terms of public forum: I'm probably going to vote for the team that does the best job of explaining the big picture of what happens in the pro and/or con world. Real world impacts are important. Weighing is important.

In terms of LD: I'm old school. I would gladly judge a value debate. I would gladly judge a round in which the criterions are debated.

In terms of policy: Good luck. Use everything written here to adapt your approach to me. I might not be the best judge for your typical approach. I do not want to have to vote on presumption.

Good luck!

Irondale High School - social studies teacher, classic debate coach, speech coach

LD

· I am a more "traditional" judge who prefers a slower debate.

· I do not currently coach LD so I might not know jargon or acronyms specific to the current topic.

· I expect arguments to clearly link to a value/criterion or some other sort of framework.

· I've only seen a couple rounds where I thought the level of abuse from a debater truly justified theory. Don't run theory as just another argument; I prefer that you debate the resolution.

· Other off-case arguments are acceptable if they're presented in a manner that is accessible to your opponent. If your opponent is not familiar with this style, do not run these arguments as a strategic advantage; I will give you low speaker points. I don't have much experience evaluating off-case arguments so run at your own risk. It'd be more strategic to incorporate creative and critical arguments within your case.

PF

· Evidence should consist of direct quotes, not paraphrasing. If your opponents are paraphrasing, I encourage you to ask for the cut card from which this paraphrased statement is based.

· In the 2nd rebuttal, it is recommended that you cover the major arguments the 1st rebuttal made on your case (especially turns).

· On the line-by-line in the summary, please signpost -- tell me where you are on the flow. Refer to arguments by their card name and which contention/subpoint they are in. Don't just say "Remember that Smith tells you..." as an extension without saying where it is on the flow and fully responding to what the other team said against it.

· First summary should focus on extending offense, though extending defense on what you think the second summary will go for can be strategic. Respond to the second rebuttal's arguments as well.

· If an argument isn't extended in both summary and final focus, I won't vote on it.

· I have a high threshold for extensions in the final focus. Even if it was dropped by the other team, I expect you to spend more than one sentence or five seconds extending it. Reexplain the card and explain why it matters in the round.

· No theory, kritiks, etc. If there is real abuse, such as oppressive language or misconstruing evidence, definitely call it out during the round, but do not run one of these types of arguments. I do not believe they should be in PF.

Congress

· I will flow the content of your speech and treat it like a mini-extemp speech in terms of thesis, argumentation, and presentation.

· Direct questioning is awesome. If you use it to respectfully point out a flaw in someone's argument, I will be impressed.

· My highest ranks will go toward speakers who make original arguments (not summarizing or copying others) early on in the debate that have a substantial impact on the overall arc of a bill. That being said, referencing previous speeches and responding to them can also be rewarded.

· I will rank POs highly if you are organized, make little to no mistakes, and maybe even allow a little humor or personality to show through in a way that helps shape a unique session. I have ranked POs first in the round before.

Miscellaneous (mainly LD and PF)

· Be nice during cross-x. Do not be aggressive, sarcastic, or condescending. I have high expectations for decorum and respect during cross-x.

· I won't call for evidence unless its validity comes into question in a speech and this challenge is extended across the flow through the end of the round.

· I judge based on my flow and have never given an "automatic loss" to a team. However, I'd consider an automatic loss if there is racist/oppressive/inappropriate conduct, or if PF partners excessively communicate with each other during individual speeches and crossfires.

· I currently coach classic debate. I appreciate that this type of debate is inclusive to new programs, and that it encourages students to respect their opponents and develop real-world argumentation and communication skills. I teach students how to engage in both flow-based and lay debate, depending on who their judge is. This statement hopefully gives you some insight into how I am as an LD or PF judge.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

For Congress:

For LD:

Major considerations for me as a judge:

1) Value clash seems unnecessary...aren't you all valuing something good? I rarely vote on the value debate.

2) Criterion/standard is VERY important. Please keep in mind: just because we use your framework to weigh the round doesn't mean YOU WIN. I vote for the debater who meets the agreed-upon framework the best. Whosever framework we use, I will use that lens to review the round.

3) Impacts are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and should be stated IN ALL SPEECHES. Otherwise, I am witnessing two debaters throw evidence and arguments at each other, but I don't know what to do with this content. TELL YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECHES! How does what you are saying influence the round?

4) I hate nuclear war/extinction arguments. Like, super hate. The only reason I would vote for you if you use nuclear war impacts is if the resolution is actually about nuclear weapons. Other than that, I will not buy slippery slope arguments. I truly hate extinction arguments...like, truly truly.

5) I don't like debate theory. It seems like an excuse not to debate the actual topic. It avoids thoughtful discourse about the topic at hand. I'll listen to topic-appropriate theory/philosophy, but not debate theory.

6) Speed does not equal winning. Just getting as muchstuff on the flow as possible is not a tactic for a win.

7) Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or ableist arguments will be automatically downvoted. I understand that arguments that contain these ideas might be made by accident. However, you need to work with your team/coaches if I bring this up to you on a ballot. There is no excuse to be denigrating a group of people.

Background. Total rounds debated in HS: 5 policy, 2 LD. Coach since 1987, policy and LD. B.A. double major history/economics, M.A. history. Currently teach AP US history, AP US government, AP Comparative Gov and AP Micro & Macro Econ. Published author (history). Mostly coaching novice in recent years, so probably a few years behind in national circuit trends. I'll listen, but they may need more explanation.

(Update January 2024: I have not been coaching this year and will be a bit rusty. Not clueless, but any new theories or trends will need a bit more explanation. My flowing speed may also be down about 5-10%.)

I'd prefer not to be on an email chain. I want to listen to the arguments. You also increase the chance for me to intervene if I think your evidence is lined down in a sketchy or unethical way.

I believe that the debaters should be allowed to debate the arguments that they think are best suited to the resolution and the opponent's arguments. Semi-tabula rasa, probably default to comparative worlds unless you give me a reason not to. Feel free to do so.

While I will attempt to render a fair ballot on whatever arguments are presented in the round, I do have some policies or preferences.

I contend that debaters should actually sound like they know what they are talking about. With novice debaters I will act as a patient teacher. With varsity debaters I will have less sympathy with a debater who is reading a position they clearly do not understand.

Debates should feature clash, and both debaters have an obligation to argue positions which are open to clash. Ideally, these positions should at least attempt to engage the resolution. I will listen to narratives, but as these generally avoid clash on anything but a theory level, they are less preferred. I am not fond of narratives or other positions that essentially guilt the judge into voting for a debater. Just because I didn't vote for your narrative doesn't mean I reject you or your identity or your position. It is not ok to equate my ballot with me being an oppressor. Plans and counterplans are valid in LD debate, but they must be run properly. I judged (nat circuit) policy from 1997 to 2009, if that's any help.

I will listen to theory positions and enjoy a well thought out theory debate. Kind of. I insist that you actually engage the theory debate on its merits. I dislike rounds in which a ton of theory crap is tossed out hoping the opponent will miss some tiny little spike which is then blown up to monumental proportions in rebuttals. Just because you call something an absolute voting issue doesn't mean it is. I am much more likely to vote for a person winning on the substantive issues even if they allegedly mishandled the third subpoint on an RVI.

I will be extremely reluctant to "drop the debater" except in cases of in-round misconduct. Debate is about arguments, not people. A claim of "drop the debater" better have a lot of support and can't just be one more response on your list of bullet points. I will consider intervening against this argument.

I am willing to listen to other pre-fiat arguments such as Kritiks. Again, you need to understand the position and it should be germane. I tend to believe that most kritiks should have a viable alternative, but would be willing to listen to a claim that they don't.

Todd.mensink@gmail.com

I view myself as a traditional but flexible LD judge. When making a decision I try to keep an open mind, and only consider the arguments that have been presented in the round as they were presented. I don’t believe in filling in the blanks for the debaters. I will entertain any argument as long as it is well explained. Speed is not a problem.

I do believe that the resolution is important, and should be interpreted precisely and with reasonable assumptions about drafters intent. Unless you tell me to do otherwise, In making a decision, I start with the resolution, then move to the value, then the criterion, then the contentions. In most rounds that I hear, the value is basically ignored, but I am happy to listen to debate on the value. In my view, Morality and justice as they are typically presented are not values, at least not ones worth debating. They are broad conceptions that have no meaning unless informed by actual values upon which there can be clash (freedom, responsibility, equality, human life, etc.). Every villain thinks s/he is moral and just, and is when viewed through the values that inform them. The question is, are the values that inform one persons conception of morality more or less valid than those that inform another person’s.

So, when deciding a round, unless you explicitly request that I decide the round in a different way, and either get your opponent to agree or out-debate your opponent on why your judging criteria should be used, I will use what is said in the round to determine: first, what should be valued (generally based on how it links directly into the resolution), second, what criterion should be used to determine if the value is upheld, and finally, which debater best upholds the criterion.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

Pronouns: They / She

My Debate Experience: I have been involved in debate since 2011. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in Minnesota. I have 4 years of coaching experience at schools in the state. Currently in grad school so taking a break from coaching, but am a lead instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute. Experience with all formats.

For all Formats: Any arguments that are offensive are not going to be evaluated, you WILL lose speaker points, and probably will lose the round. Please don't make me stop the round by saying something offensive.

LD Paradigm:

TL;DR: Run whatever you want, but make sure you are clear and can explain the arguments to me. Do clear impacting and weighing for me, don't make me search through the flow (hint: I won't do it for you). Have clear voters. Be respectful of your opponent and the debate space.

I have realized that most of y'all go way faster than I can flow (especially with analytics). Please slow down a little bit... thanks. Take your max speed level and go about 50% of that in front of me. Note: I will not yell clear. I will just put my pen down. Therefore, I encourage you to look up for the taglines and impact analysis to make sure I am still with you.

I am down with mostly anything. I believe that debaters are at their best when they run case positions that they are confident and comfortable with running. I will do my best as your judge to understand and follow what you are saying. I am flow-oriented so I will not intervene on arguments so... you need to tell me where I need to vote and why.

Pro Tip: Don't just read things to read them, have a strategy and purpose behind them.

Public Forum Paradigm:

2023 Update: Heyo! Take your fastest speed and go about 50% of that in front of me if you are doing a lot of nitty gritty analytic responses or weighing. I have a really hard time catching the relevant analyses if you fly through it faster than my brain can even process it.

- Do NOT paraphrase evidence and make sure your evidence has warrants. I am not the person to paraphrase cards in front of... I will not evaluate them. Nor am I someone who will buy the one sentence card that is supposedly the end all be all evidence. You need warrants.

- Make sure that you are impacting your contentions. I NEED weighing on the contention level to evaluate between two opposing claims. If you are running short-term impacts and your opponent is running long-term impacts, I NEED the clash and weighing between which is preferable for me to evaluate on.

- Speaking of clash - please do it.

- I am open to any type of arguments/styles in PF. If you want to try out some new strategies, DO IT! This is your time to run what you want to. I can give you feedback on what strategies worked and what didn't work in front of me.

- I am very flow oriented. Extended through ink is one of my greatest pet peeves. Also, if you are making a new argument in the final focus, I will recognize that and probably will not evaluate it.

- 2nd Rebuttal - you need to go over your own case. At the very least, I need you to cover the turns that are on the flow. On the flip side... do not go over your own case in 1st rebuttal, you are wasting time in my book.

CD Paradigm:

- Top ranking students in chambers that I judge remain active throughout the session (multiple high-quality speeches, questions, and noticeably paying attention to other speakers) and have nuanced analysis that builds off of other speakers (refutations or supportive analysis oriented).

- Canned speeches are not super welcome unless it is the first aff or first neg speech.

- Clash is the most important aspect missing from CD. Build off of other speakers, add analysis, and respond to the opposing claims when appropriate.

- Remain as active as possible in chamber throughout the session. I pay attention to who is asking the questions and the types of questions you are asking. If you get a 30 second block, use the whole time!

- Analysis and warrants to support you claims is critical. Lower speaker points (under 4) demonstrate a lack of content or analysis of the arguments. If you wish to obtain a score of 4 or higher in your speech, make sure you are using sources and explaining the context surrounding your warrant/data and build off of other speakers before you.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

I've been coaching debate at Robbinsdale since 2013 and love a clean and clear traditional debate. Have offense that outweighs your opponents and links cleanly into the winning framework and you'll win my ballot. If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing, so clarity and a reasonable speed are both important. Be sure to make your signposting and extensions clear. Not a fan of theory or other complex and exclusionary argument frameworks. If you can't make the argument in a conversational way on the flow, or as an overview I probably won't consider it in the round.

Overall, the point is to have fun, so take a deep breath and try to enjoy yourself. :)

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

General Considerations:

Kindness rules!

Listen to your opponent and demonstrate you understand their arguments; then present better arguments than theirs. Show a command of the whole topic.

Don't ask me about my meager paradigm unless you are committed to adjusting your debating to accommodate it. If you ask, I expect you to adjust to it. Failure to do so will lower your speaker points.

I can handle some speed; I very much prefer not to.

Congress:

I expect your arguments to pursue an answer to the legislation's purpose. It's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build things up. If you're affirming, explain how there is solvency in affirming. If you're negating, explain what would be needed to solve; don't just list reasons why the legislation won't work. Solvency is everyone's burden because you're legislators. Move society forward.

Extend arguments. Dueling oratories isn't debate. Respond to the responses of other speakers on the issues.

I actually find it compelling when you represent a particular constituency. Applying your arguments to how they impact actual citizens is the point, after all.

Lincoln/Douglas:

I'll listen to circuit argumentation, but if it isn't clear to me, I won't vote for it. That being said, sticking to the topic is much safer with me.

If you are prepping arguments, your prep time clock needs to be running. Don't stall through any tactics to get more.

If you want to start an email chain, do so before the round begins. Be ready by attaching your files to a reply ahead of time and just send at the appropriate moment.

Time yourself. Call out your prep time. You may time your opponent, but for goodness sake, do NOT set an alarm. That's just obnoxious.

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

‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

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

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

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

‏‏‎ ‎

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

Debate should be an enjoyable activity. I want you to have fun and a part of that is actually debating the resolution. I like a good framework debate, but it is not all-encompassing for me. I am looking to see who can actually defend their side of the resolution with clear stats, experts, etc. I'm looking for strong evidence and clearly cited cards. Please don't just reference the card title, give me a warrant for its use. Impact your contentions back to your framework! That is where framework weighs the most for me.

I very much appreciate signposting and roadmaps throughout the debate, as well as voters or world comparisons in final rebuttals. I don't love super-spreading to try to confuse or mislead your opponent. I'm also not a fan of theory debate or Ks. Debate the resolution - that is what everyone is preparing for each tournament. I think it is border-line abusive to other debaters (especially from non-circuit schools or those without access to national travel). I am looking for a clean debate of the resolution.

Be polite to one another.

A note on Speaker Points: This is a speech activity, so I am looking for good inflection, articulation, eye contact, etc. My speaker points aren't necessarily related to how well you argued the case, but how well you spoke overall.

Background: I started coaching debate in Texas in 2001. I have been coaching LD in Minnesota since 2019.