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.)

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

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

Etiquette & Common Questions

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

Spreading

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

Paragraph long tags

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

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

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

Topicality/Theory

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

Disclosure Theory

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

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

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

Kritiks

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

CPs/DAs/etc

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

Framework (LD)

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

Random thought on util

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

Overviews/Underviews

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

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

I’m a parent judge who has judged LD for 3 years now.

I have mainly judged local tournaments in Minnesota, so only traditional debate.

You should give voters, speak at a slower pace, and explain your argument thoroughly to get my ballot.

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.

I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 16 years, coaching for 10, and this is my third year in Minnesota.

PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a tad bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.

LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.

PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:

1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.

PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.

2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).

3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.

4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.

5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.

6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.

Congress:

PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.

Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:

• When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
• For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
• When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"

Some other PO Notes:

• I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
• I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
• I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
• The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
• The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.

Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up.

Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2024 MN Sections/State:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who am I:

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

Things I like:

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

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

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

Things I don't like:

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

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

Specific arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misc:

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

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

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

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

3. Be nice.

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

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

Background:

- I'm a parent judge (judge both PF and LD)

- I'm knowledgable about economics and international relations

Argument Preferences:

Keep it within the topic, don't try to skirt the main debate either. Explain philosophy thoroughly if you're going to do it

Use speed at your own risk--it's probably not a good idea.

Do weighing somewhere, arguments that intuitively are more probable are going to be considered more probable by me.

In terms of jargon, keep it to a minimum.

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!

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument. and dont read tricks please :)))))

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THE CRITICISM

I think they are usually pretty good arguments but I feel as though they are often times assumed to come prior for no particular reason and I wont just arbitrarily do that for you. I need a substantial amount of explanation for me to feel comfortable voting on denser theories like afropessimism, baudrillard, lacan etc.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

dont read them please :)

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

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.

NFA-LD: I'm a college policy coach and judge. Very familiar with the nukes topic. Basically won't vote on theory arguments that aren't conditionality. I am not at all familiar with the norms of the NFA-LD format, so bear with me. Read the rest of my paradigm--it's all relevant.

he/him

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

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

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

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

I hold the line.

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

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

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

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. Issues of safety should be decided outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

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

Specific arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I'm Karl Krogstad. I'm a parent judge from Lakeville, so I'd prefer that you keep the debate topical and refrain from spreading. You're welcome to time each other, but if you run too far over I'll cut you off. Average speaker points for me are around 27.5, though they'll go up for clarity of extensions and good signposting.

Do your best, and good luck to all competitors!

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

Hi! I'm Ethan, I'm a recent college grad who is coming back to debate after being out of the game for quite a while. I'm from Minnesota, where I mostly debated traditional LD, with occasional dips into other stuff (national circuit LD, PF, Congressional, and Parli). I've done some coaching as well, mostly in LD. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round. I'm not big on formality -- have fun, be silly, and above all, be kind (to your opponent and to yourself)!!

tl;dr: I strongly believe that debate is a powerful way to build knowledge + portable skills, and that coaches/judges should act as educators before anything else. I'm super game to listen to any kind of debate, as long as the debaters are making an effort to substantively engage with important topics. I will not hesitate to penalize debaters who intentionally make the activity exclusionary, inaccessible, or otherwise worse. The way to win my ballot is to paint a clear picture of what happens in the affirmative/negative world, and to explicitly justify why your positive impacts outweigh your opponent's negative ones.

Email, for email chains and anything else you might want: ethanmirman@gmail.com

Misc. other stuff:

-If you're speaking too fast for me, I will say "clear" (or put it in chat if I'm on a virtual panel). Your opponent is also welcome to say "clear" if you're going too fast for them. I expect you to slow down for them as well.

-I like Ks, but have very little experience dealing with them. If you can help me understand your literature and why your arguments justify voting for you, I will do my best to vote for you. I'll be super happy if you read literature you're clearly familiar with and have a deep personal connection to, and I will heavily penalize you if you are clearly using the K as a strategy to exclude your opponent.

-I dislike tricks and theory. If your opponent is doing something bad, explain why the thing is bad and why voting them down solves. I'll vote them down if I agree, but won't evaluate the line-by-line.

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.

I am a teacher and coach at Eastview High School (MN) - the 2023-2024 school year is my 21st year coaching and my 25th year involved in speech and debate. Full disclosure: I don't judge a whole lot. I'm usually doing other things at tournaments. But: I do actively coach, I enjoy judging almost every time I get to, and I like to think I'm fairly predictable in terms of what I look for and prefer.

You can ask me questions in round if you wish.

PF: I can "handle speed", though I don't know that I've seen many fast PF debaters. I have seen many blippy PF debaters. To me, speed does not equate to 40 cards, of varying word count, that are blippily extended. I very much prefer depth and extension of ideas than extension of tons of author names that all don't say a whole lot.

Congress: What I most value in this event include:

(1) Debating! Pre-scripted speeches (with the exception of an authorship) don't do much for me. Each speech should be somehow moving the debate forward; when speeches are merely read, they don't have that power. This also means that rehashing of points should be avoided. If you do discuss arguments previously made, what can you do to move them forward and develop a deeper line of analysis? Some type of impact analysis, new weighing, perhaps a new facet of the problem? Just repeating argumentation doesn't help move the debate forward.

(2) Thesis-driven speeches. I like to see a clear framework, clear organization, and a coherent structure that all supports some major theme within your speech. A hodgepodge of impacts and arguments that feel unrelated don't have as much weight as a speech that has a central, core idea behind it.

(3) Evidence. Moreso than an author name, I do like to hear credentials and dates. Not only that, evidence comparisons are so often key to the debate - why should I prefer your evidence over other evidence that has been heard so far in the round?

(4) Diversity of Cycle Position. If I hear a debater give me four first negative speeches, I don't feel like I get a true sense of the skill of that debater. Preferably, I'd like to hear each entry speak in different parts of the cycle. If you give me a first negative, maybe work to have a speech near the end of the debate to show my your crystallization skills. If you have a mid-cycle speech, maybe work to have a constructive speech next time. Obviously, your precedence and recency determines some of your order, but work to showcase differing skills in the round.

(5) Cross-x is important, but not everything. Speeches carry far more weight than questions. I do listen to questions, take into account your chamber activity, and really enjoy hearing c-x's that bring up holes in a position (or expertly bolster a position). But too often, I see debaters hurting themselves in c-x more than helping themselves. Overly aggressive, snippy, demeaning c-x's just don't help build a debater's eithos. Two competent debaters can have a good discourse without resulting to being mean. In c-x, I like to get proof that you truly "know your stuff" - that you're researched, have a handle on the topic, and didn't just read some brief that was given to you.

(6) Knowledge. The very best debaters, in my opinions, are the ones that have a fundamental understanding of the issues and can communicate them in a clear, impactful way. That simple statement is really hard to master. It is fairly clear when a person is well read, can respond to arguments with substantiated claims on fly, and can think on a deeper level. Show me your mastery of the content and you will be rewarded.

Finally, (7) Just Debate. I enjoy Congress - but when debate devolves into games and tricks designed to disadvantage any given speaker, I get frustrated. In my humble opinion, the very best debaters work to get their wins through mastery of the content, clear argumentation, and a firm but kind debating style. Resorting to games is beneath that. Have fun, for sure, but don't do so at the expense of others.

I competed in policy in high school and in NDT for four years in college. However, my high school years were 1981-85, and my college years were 1985-89. Since that time, I coached national level policy debate from 1992-2007, and then retired for 13 years. From 2020 through 2023 I have been coaching LD for Edina HS. I have also been a labor and employment lawyer (representing employers) since graduating from law school in 1992.

I believe debate is a verbal activity. I will flow your speeches and will yell clear if I cannot understand you. If I yell clear, slow down and ensure that I am tracking your speech. I will not flow based on your speech doc. I will consult the speech doc if there is a dispute about what evidence says.

Given my policy history, my default evaluation is policy in orientation. However, I'm more than willing to evaluate a debate based on a philosophical framework or a kritical/in-round framework. I am not a big fan of tricks debate, as I apply a Toulmin-style evaluation of arguments and expect a claim, data and warrant, and in my experience a lot of tricks debate arguments lack the data and warrant elements of a Toulmin argument. However, I do judge the debate based on the flow, and I've certainly voted on a lot of theory arguments in my time.

I think debate is a wonderful activity and I value everyone's contribution and participation. As a result I will react negatively to any conduct or argumentation that devalues or diminishes debaters. If you're rude, nasty or mean, expect me to reduce your speaker points. If your rudeness or nastiness is related to gender, race or some other protected characteristic, expert me to reduce them a lot.

I love to watch debaters having fun. It's a great activity. Try to enjoy it.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

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. :)

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: Make your contentions obvious, don't spread, and don't be an offensive/abusive idiot. I believe that theory (especially disclosure theory) is counterproductive to the debate community and if you run it you will lose my ballot.

Please send your case to my email so that I can pre-flow the round: sasha.warbritton@ephsspeech.org

Speech: If you are not memorized, I will always rank you below someone who has done the work of memorization. In PA, I am looking for well-structured speeches with a good balance of analysis and evidence. Performance quality matters with tone, hand gestures and overall confidence, and while jokes are fun, they are not necessary to win my round. In Interp, I am looking for well defined characters, clear blocking, and a speaker who is fully immersed in their performance.

I coach debate at Armstrong/Cooper, did debate in high school and did well at state/attended nationals, and am familiar with a lot of argumentation.

That being said I prefer traditional LD debate (framework, extensions, weighing etc.) I will hear counterplans and progressive arguments to an extent but I am WAY more likely to buy a traditional case.

No spreading, it is exclusionary to others, no racism, hate speech, homophobia, sexism. Include trigger warnings for sexual assault, don't run sexual assault cases if possible.

Don't use other peoples trauma to win debate rounds please.

Be kind and considerate, but being assertive is fine.

Overall, just give me a clean debate with weighing and voters. If you tell me how to vote I will vote that way. thanks.