if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

Please be kind, provide your links, and crystallize. Please give me voters and don’t just go up and down your flow in final focus. This shows me that you understand what matters in the round and can put that in your own words. I generally vote on these last two speeches, and if I don’t, there’s been a critical error somewhere along the line.
Please do not tell me when to stop prep time. I will stop it when you show me you are ready to speak.
I don’t like gamesmanship. I don’t especially buy or like kritiks in public forum debate.
Debate fairly—with clash and roadmapping—and we will all have a good time!

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. Don't paraphrase. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

1. Debate background:

1. Judged High school debate for (9 years);
2. Assistant debate coach for 2 years.

2. Judging:

• I love flow and base my judgment on logical arguments, facts, science, etc.
• I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters-- i.e.-- argumentation + delivery

In debate, I look for critically thought out arguments that make sense resolutionally. Answer the question-provide the plan. In old school talk-I am a stock issues/communicator judge for policy debate. Much of that would pose true for Public Forum.

I do not like evidence spew for the sake of spreading opponents out of the round. I can track with moderate speed, but I want to hear some analysis of the argument and subsequent rebuttal. If I have stopped typing on the flow-or writing on my flow pad, I can't judge it. Speed does not win the day for me-signposting is appreciated.

LD-I want to see clear value/criterion debate-when rounds tend toward the policy, I tend to tune out. I was a die-hard LDer who was trained to answer the resolution, provide clear value clash, and wrestle with the pragmatic solutions...if there are any. I like to see how the students can creatively tackle the same resolution-so a less common tactic is cool with me- Again, speed is not my game-if I can't understand you-it doesn't make it one the flow and is not judged.

I love to hear the conversations that come out of really good rounds where there is a clear exchange of ideas and a definite clash-that, to me, is where the most authentic learning takes place! Talk pretty and have fun!!!!

Hi folks!

My name is Kiah (she/her) and I graduated from Yankton High School (South Dakota) in 2021. I've mostly debated Lincoln-Douglas and Congress, but I have a tiny bit of Public Forum experience.

I debated traditional/lay debate throughout high school, so please keep that in mind going into round. I can handle speed to an extent.

Here is a list of things that make me :))) in rounds

1. SIGNPOSTING!!! it helps me as a judge when i'm flowing, and it should help you in round. you absolutely will get docked if you don't signpost.

2. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

3. warrants that you can actually explain tbh

4. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)

5. when you kick your F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)

6. in general if you teach me something that’s great!!!!

Here is a list of things that make me :'( in rounds

1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will:

a. drop kick u off the ballot

b. give u the lowest legal speaks

c. talk to ur coach

d. tell ur mom

2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. i will drop speaks if necessary.

3. don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it

ask me or email me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to :) holmstromkiah@gmail.com

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

---[ Key Points ]---

Philosophy: Tabula Rasa, flow judge, and Key arguments tend to decide

Speed: Moderate / Sub-spread (250-350 WPM)

Case: Should be shared either in physical copy or digitally. Don't care how many contentions there are.

Tigger Warnings: Should be checked pre-round for sensitive material and ready to be switched out

---[ Personal Info ]---

Pronouns: (They/Them)

Email: Martin.Kloster@jacks.sdstate.edu

Experience: Policy, PF, LD, World Schools, and Big Questions. I also have experience in Oral Interp (Drama, Humorous, Duo, Readers Theatre), theatre, and Extempt. Fourth year judging.

Education: Junior at SDSU majoring in Sociology and minoring in Philosophy / Comp Sci. I have a good grasp on most of the concepts discussed in round.

Online ballots tend to be long and specific, and are filled out as a tournament goes on. I enter the results first, then update comments until all of my notes are down or I run out of time. If a ballot is blank or incomplete - or if there are any questions - then email me and I will do my best to communicate my RFD, notes, flow, and/or make clarifications.

---[ General Information ]---

/ Evidence /

I expect transparency first and foremost. If evidence is asked for it must be provided within one minute, after that prep time must be used. If evidence can't be provided then it will be dropped, and debaters can choose to drop evidence at any point in the round. Evidence should be linked back to the source material as a link or to the full text. Evidence should be a text document (word, google docs) or pdf because of paywalls and highlighting/marking. For summarized evidence, relevant text should be in some way marked or noted. Logic based arguments don't need sourcing or evidence. I prefer that a copy of the case is shared, but this is not required unless asked. The best way to share evidence and cases is through an email chain and the second best is through https://speechdrop.net/. This should be configured before the round.

/ Speed and Performance /

I have audio processing disorder and ADHD, so I can't keep up with full on spreading. I prefer moderate/sub-spread speed (250-350 wpm). Articulation and volume is important and will allow for higher speeds. Sharing a copy of the case will allow me to make up for the Audio Processing Disorder, meaning that I have an easier time judging and the debaters have better judging on their cases.

/ Default Weighing Preferences /

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Case

Don't get abusive with spikes and blips.

/ Kritiks /

Running K's:

I love K's when they are properly argued. Running K's have risks, and I expect them to be run well. K's are highly technical to set up and run, and it can end up falling apart with a simple mistake. The best way to mitigate risking a round is to be careful and/or fall back if the K fails. I also need signposting or communication that it is a K so I can judge it accordingly.

Defending against K's:

A debater should at least be prepared with generic defense. If you can get to the heart of the K and argue on that, you can probably beat it. One caution: arguing that the K is abusive without without warrants will fail. The more prepped a debater is against an argument, the less I will weigh limits abuse.

/ Theory /

I will weigh theory if it's argued well. Proper Theory arguments with good impacts will do well. I dislike Framers intent but do enjoy Topicality arguments as a whole.

/ Arguments /

I have biases like anyone else, but I make sure not to vote on them. Because I feel it is important for transparency to state them, I have listed them below....

I love hearing Marxist, Anarchist, Feminist, Critical Race Theory, Decolonization, Queer Theory, etc. Generally won't care about Econ arguments unless they are tied into impacts on living beings or have a framework to make it important. I Passively dislike Heg and Realism arguments, but am still willing to listen. Again: I will vote almost anything with solid warrants and argumentation.

/ Trigger Warnings /

Trigger Warnings should be given prior to the speech and before the round if it is in the case. If an opponent or judge is unable to interact with the sensitive material, a back up should be prepared or the point should be dropped. If you have the foresight and understanding to check about material before use I expect alternatives to be prepared.

/ Variations /

I weigh and judge Novice differently than I do Varsity, and am more strict with how K's are ran in state.

---[ Lincoln-Douglas / Policy ]---

Tabula Rasa jduge. I am loosely attached to the rules unless they have good warrants. Debate is socially constructed for the benefit of the students, and as such it should be up to the students to construct it however they want. NSDA rules work for me, but if debaters want to argue that a rule or structure is wrong then I'll follow along. I just need good arguments.

In the round, I put whether or not the debaters themselves are respected first. This means that competitors should attack the arguments and not the opponents. A light degree would result in lower speaker points, and egregious cases will be met with a vote down. If a round needs to be put on a hold because of an anxiety or a panic attack, I'll do whatever I can to accommodate - I just need some notification.

While I'm not technical about the rules (unless it is brought to the center of a debate), I am technical when it comes to the ideas and arguments within a round. In my ballots I'll try to point out exactly where I think weaknesses are in the case or arguments, but I won't vote on these unless they are either touched on in the debate or I'm forced at the end of the round to make connections because of a wash. I am open to any arguments as long as there are good warrants, links, and they don't actively degrade people. K's are great with a good link, but also I am perfectly willing to do whatever with the ballot if both competitors agree and it actively furthers education (Ex: Using the rest of the debate to talk about an issue that is affecting the real world). Run something fun that you care about it. Odds are I'll follow along with it and prefer that over something that is strictly strategic. Make debate a fun experience.

High Speaks - Respectful yet assertive debate. Compelling ideas and good argumentation will improve your position. 30 if I think that the round betters debate as an activity.

Low Speaks - Abusive arguments or showing a lack of care. Very low Speaks for being abusive to opponents.

---[ Public Forum ]---

I have a debate background, so I understand jargon and will judge off the flow. Good arguments and understanding what is being argued will lead to a win. Don't be afraid of running frameworks and resolutional analyses, because I will take them into consideration and they will make an impact.

---[ Extempt ]---

Questions should have a clear answer with convincing points. Timing to me is important, but usually not a deciding factor. I will weigh information density and quality over performance, but only margianally so (it can be a tie breaker). In person I will turn my laptop around so that the competitor can see the time and I don't need to worry about missing a time signal.

Include me on the email chain: Rnold042302@gmail.com

Speed preferences (Please read):

PF: Should not be a policy speed, but a faster pace is ok as long as you are clear. It is still your job to make sure that you emphasize/slow down on the most important points you are making. Basically, if you want me to flow it, make sure its clear.

Traditional LD: Between pf and policy, National Circuit: See policy below

Policy: 6/10. I did policy for 3 years, so I'm exposed to spreading. However, I would still prefer not too fast of a round. This isn't a traditionalist preference, but more of a matter of general accessibility for me. You can still spread to an extent, but it needs to be comprehensible. I should be able to get your arguments clearly even without the email chain (Although I would like to be on the email chain). If I think you are being too fast or not clear enough, I will try to say clear, but it is still on you to emphasize and make sure I get your key points. Don't worry about this too much, just remember not to go too speedy.

General "TLDR" about me as a judge :

I did policy for three years and public forum my senior year, but I also have some experience with Lincoln Douglass. I am currently a student at University of Alabama.

I am most likely familiar with a wide variety of types of arguments you would likely run in the round, but don't assume you don't have to do the work to flesh out the arguments you present in the round well.

First and foremost- Run what you are best at. I'd rather see a good debate than what I prefer personally. This doesn't mean you have a free pass to run super bad args but don't feel like you have to completely fit the round around me.

I'm basically Tabula Rasa. Give me a framework/Framing and Ill go with it until it is refuted or dropped. That goes for aff and neg. I would say that I minimize my interference in the round and with my paradigm as much as possible, and when I do have to make decisions (especially on theory) I try to go with whichever debate norms presented (aff/neg) maximizes education in the round (I take into account impacts like accessibility, racism, discrimination, etc as a part of education, so don't shy away from these args in theory).

Policy Specific:

Case Debate: I will vote probably not vote on solvency or case-takeouts alone (unless there are link/impact turns read). neg still needs to extend offense, otherwise I'll probably be very open to Aff "if there's a 1% chance..." type arguments.

CP's- I default to sufficiency framing. The cp's viability as a winning argument (barring theory) is essentially a product of how much it resolves aff impacts and the magnitude of the net benefit. On neg, be clear on what the net benefit is and how the cp doesn't link. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. This makes it easier for me to resolve arguments on the perm debate level.

For AFF- Perms are the best, but I'm definitely open to other stuff. Theory is good too, condo, specific to the cp, etc., as long as it is warranted out and you provide me with how they violate the theory arguments. Multiple perms are generally ok-ish, but if they are fairly unique or if a perm is similar to a previous perm, you have to highlight the differences otherwise I'm lenient on allowing neg cross-applications of perm answers.

K's-

I am fine with critical debate on both sides, but I need the link story to be clear for me on the flow. Also, pleaseeeeeeee understand and effectively explain the alt. I need to know how the alt resolves the links, solves for the impacts outlined, etc. Too many affs let the neg get away with not explaining the alt well enough. Even if its not "vague", push neg on this.

K affs are definitely chill, you do you. But if neg pushes framework, make sure you have good answers to the TVA. It doesn't have to be a super in depth arg, but I should see something in the 2ac/1ar about why defending the resolution or a TVA of your K aff is bad. Also unless it strictly does not work with your K, please please please try to have some type of /alt/advocacy statement to act as a stable point for neg-testing.

On neg- I'm most familiar with the cap k and wildersonian afropess args, but you are cool to run whatever as long as you explain it well and make sure I understand the story of the K. Don't assume I know your lit. Also, you will likely need to reduce speed on these arguments given my likely unfamiliarity with the specific literature.

T- Default to competing interps but can be convinced otherwise. Also, on aff don't just say "reasonability". Reasonability also requires extension of a counterinterp or you must win we meet bc Reasonability means we meet a reasonable interp of the Resolution. It's not a wishy washy justification of tangentially topical affs.

Theory: I'm open to most all things, but a caveat: I'm not a big fan of generic wiki-based disclosure arguments (unless it is centered around some other impact like accessibility or taken in a critical direction). If I can tell you are just reading generic "Your aff wasn't listed on the wiki so you should lose" I'll listen to it but I will let you know I don't think its a great argument unless it is tied to deeper accessibility or fairness norms (i.e, tell me a story and give me meaningful impacts). You have to prove why this is a reason to drop the debater. Neg has a higher threshold for winning this than T in my eyes.

LD- I'm most familiar with traditional value-framework LD, but Plans are ok on more progressive circuits or if both debaters are ok with it (but then neg also gets full access to cps and K's). In traditional debates, I first decide which value is to be used in the round (based on arguments made), and then look to see which side maximizes that value. Dropping your framework is ok in my book if you can win under your opponents framework.

I'm also open to more critical arguments or circuit debate styles as long as general accessability to the debate is maintained for both debaters. However, If aff takes a traditional ld approach w/o a plan, neg needs to argue why they (the neg) should get conditional advocacies (this is definitely an uphill battle). For more info on my paradigm for progressive circuit ld style, see ^ for policy.

PF-

I default to hypo testing for public forum. The game is one of "resolution: true or false?" This is similar to what you're normally used to in pf so nothing mainly different. The key difference is that this isn't only just squo versus pro world, but instead a test of the resolution as a truth claim. Therefore, con can make arguments that aren't the squo as long as they don't read a specific plan or advocacy. I repeat, No plan statements or specified advocacies!

Please give me impact comparison in the final speeches (Time, magnitude, probability, etc) to help me do an effective cost-benefit analysis on the topic (if that is the framework of the round). I will also admit i'm a sucker for a story. Cohesive impact narratives are much easier to vote on than messy disconnected ideas.

Critical arguments are ok, but no alts/plans. Theory is also ok, but I'll admit personally I'm not a big fan of wiki disclosure based theory args (see policy section for more). That doesn't mean its not a viable option, just you need to show actual in round harms.

Other than that, have fun!

(Any questions on my paradigm? Feel free to email me or ask before the round begins)

Other Notes:

-Feel free to use all of cx even if you don't have more great questions. It's free prep for your partner. I won't dock speaks for this unless it is egregiously bad.

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

I am a former South Dakota debater who competed in PFo, oratory, and interp. I’m now the head debate coach at Mitchell High School. I’m a traditional Public Forumer; this event was created for lay judges and heavy Public Forum jargon should be left to the side.

- This isn’t policy. Slow down and give me a quality delivery for higher speaks. Throwing delivery by the wayside for a fast and robotic presentation is a massive mistake so many debaters commit. I’m an Aristotle girlie - persuade me with your ethos, logos, and pathos!

- I'll be closely following the arguments presented, and if you believe there's a pivotal point crucial for winning the round, please ensure to address it in one of your subsequent speeches.

- Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card.

- Direct quotes > Paraphrasing. I won't immediately downvote you for paraphrasing, but if your debate opponent can provide a compelling reason, I might reconsider. The same principle applies to the misuse of evidence. If your opponent requests a card citation, and it contradicts your argument or the way you presented it, it could be deemed abusive, potentially leading to a loss in the round.

- Creativity in arguments is encouraged, as long as you have the link chain to back it up. Using abusively creative arguments is not my favorite (ie., student loan debt forgiveness will lead to nuclear war.)

- Weighing metrics are SO IMPORTANT! Even if it seems obvious to you, lay it all out for me so you ensure it gets weighed how you see fit.

- Summaries should not be utilized as second rebuttals; use your summary for voters and to tell me why I’m preferring you on each flowed contention.

- Be assertive, not aggressive! I’m such a firm believer of “If you have to be mean to get your point across, you’re a bad debater.” Aggressiveness will cost you speaker points.

- I have come to despise off-the-clock roadmaps and asking if every individual in the round is ready; you can begin and we’ll catch up.

- Telling me what I’m going to be voting is such a pet peeve of mine. Tell me what to weigh, what to prefer, what to analyze, what to flow through - do NOT tell me what I’m going to vote. :)

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.

"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg