My email is mart4516@umn.edu

Please note if I do not respond immediately just continue to email till, I respond. I promise you are not bothering me. I assist several professors and so sometimes it will get buried fast. Please tell me which tournament and what round and any specific questions you have for me.

I have a Finance degree. I did a lot of classes in international relations and business, so I have a solid base knowledge on the world economy.

I did High School Policy and recently have been helping a few schools in Congress and LD. I did not debate in college which means all of my thoughts are from before the pandemic so take it with a grain of salt.

I am a pretty expressive judge. You will know how I feel about certain arguments.

Congress:

I am an experienced Parli judging at TOC level tournaments. I do evaluate P.O’s in my breaks for the round. I do value the round being moved fast and efficiently. Typically, I allow 1-2 mistakes per hour of debate. I am more lenient at the Novice and Middle School level.

If the chamber constantly breaks cycle this will affect the entire chamber, you should be prepped on both sides of bills. We are asking you to roleplay which may mean defending positions you are not comfortable or do not align with your personal beliefs.

Does your speech flow?

Is your hook generic?

Do you read off a paper?

Are you robotic?

Are you repeating points already made?

Do you move around the room?

Do your points make sense? (If you are doing a company takeover does your bill actually allocate enough funds)

TOC BID SPECIFIC:

Please show me that you want it. I expect you to be prepped for both sides of the debate. Please expect me to evaluate every part of your speech as given above. I will evaluate P.O’s but at this level I expect you to be nearly flawless in the round.

My favorite hook has been “In an effort to keep Parli Martin’s blood pressure down.” I love a little banter with your judges.

Trust me, this is just as awkward for you as it is for me.

My debaters will tell you that I am not nearly as scary as I seem.

POLICY:

I don’t swing one way or another on mechanics or types of arguments. I dislike poor argumentation.

I did mostly K's during high school, that being said I will vote on topicality as an apriori.

Please for my sanity have an alt that is clear, if it is from an unreliable source I will question the validity of the alt.

If you are going to run a theory argument there has to be in round abuse or at the very minimum a clear link to the ballot.

For speaker points, I care less about word economics and more on if you can get your point across. If that takes you 4 ummm, and a few pauses or if you can get it first time thats fine.

Hello, y'all! My name is Dylan Tate, and I am currently a junior captain debating in my third year of policy debate for Rosemount High School.

Rosemount '21-

Yes—put me on the chain—dylantate.debate@gmail.com

Top level--

Debate is a game and thus requires fairness. If, at any point in the debate, you are a complete jerk, I will vote you down. Sorry, not sorry. Nevertheless, debate is, most importantly, an educational activity, and this aspect should be the key focus of debate. Don't be afraid to be yourself and have fun!

-Tech > Truth--this logic applies to any argument for the exception of any SPEC arguments.

Speed--

I am lowkey good on speed. I typically enjoy fast debate, but clarity is necessary.

Organization--

It is wise of you to give me a road map after the 1AC and 1NC. Really, you are only hurting your speaks if you don't do this.

Speaks--

On a 30 point scale,

29.4+ = speaker award worthy

29 = great

28.4 = good

27.9 = average

27.5 and below = below average

+ .5 speaks if you make me laugh in round

Novice/Rookie Debate--

I'm not going to get in much detail here. JUST HAVE FUN! Try to be as responsive as possible to your opponent's arguments.

That's about it!

JV/Varsity--

Top level: Again, debate is a game, meaning we, as the debate community, must be fair and promote education. I will always defend this idea.

• I really had mutliple stargeties in debate. I've ran soft left Aff's, big stick Aff's, one off K on the Neg, 7 off on the Neg with 4 CPs. You get the idea. This means that I really don't have any overarching bleiefs about how a debate should operate in terms of whether it should be more policy or Kritikal. The best debates often have a combination of both.

• K Aff v K or FW--

I don't mind K Affs, but that isn't to say I necessarily like them. I've had multiple teammates run them, but you are going to have to explain its thesis to me CLEARLY. Seriously. The Aff ought to win framing that's specific to the Aff and the Neg should run a Cap K and FW. That's just me, though. I don't think I have ever seen a winning K-Aff in my life, but if you want to go for it, feel free.

• Policy Aff vs K--

As the Aff, the best way to get out of the K is to win FW and a no root cause argument. Also, you could read theory stating that the Neg can't judge-kick the alt so as to prevent a presumption ballot. As the Neg, you must win a link, impact, FW, and an alt (only if you don't imply judge-kick the alt). As the Aff, pin the Neg to a functional alt. Otherwise, the K is just a non-unique disad.

• Soft left Aff vs K

It's hard to get a link here for a K, but try to argue that the Aff is a band-aid solution. Again, most soft left Affs will be able to win a permutation against Ks will structural violence impacts.

• Aff vs CP + DA--

As the Aff, you have to prove no sufficient link to the DA and/or a permutation on the CP that can shield the link to the DA. I really like these debates, but the Neg should just flush out both in the Neg Block, explaining how the CP competes, no perm, and the impact calculus of the DA. Again, please don't do the classic States CP + Politics DA 2NR. States CP is by far my least favorite non-SPEC argument.

• Aff vs DA--

For the Aff, attack the probability of the DA. I have won so many debate rounds by saying, "They have no warrants as to how nuke war will happen and how this conflict is even reasonable." It's as simple as that. Attack the internal link chain, regardless of the DA. On the Neg, argue try or die for the squo. I think that's a fine argument, but you REALLY HAVE TO WIN IMPACT CALC for the position to be at all compelling. Also, I would provide multiple impact scenarios for the DA in front of me. Ex: Ukraine Aid Ptx DA leads to global nuke war and world-wide food insecurity.

• Aff vs T--

By far, this is the most underrated 2NR strat. For the Neg on T, you have to win practically every part of the T shell plus state in round abuse and contextualize how this makes debate a uniquely bad space under the Aff's interp. For the Aff, win that the Neg is overlimiting and start that argumentation by the 2AC while also advocating for reasonibility--good is good enough.

Plan action in a vacuum >>>>>> plan text in a vacuum

1NR heg rant (just skip to the end if you don't care)

The 1NR is the most important speech in debate in my mind. Literally, my partner and I went from not clearing at the state tournament to qualifying for nationals just by adding a crap ton of offense in the 1NR. Seriously. The 1NR should take any theory and case. Put 10+ turns on case (make sure they are smart--don't overturn one flow). If you think about it, the Negative has to win only one flow in the debate--solvency. I will be more than happy to vote on presumption.

Thanks for listening, y'all!

Peace,

Dylan Tate (drops mic)