You can run pretty much anything in front of me and I'll at least entertain the notion of voting for it, but please please know what your cards are saying and argue it well. I love weird/entertaining arguments, however, it pisses me off to see weird/entertaining arguments that the team running them clearly does not understand or care about

I love a good kritik debate. Regardless, I am still interested in straight laced policy debating and would much prefer you debate what you're comfortable with and what you feel you're most skilled at. This is especially true at the higher levels of debate- I find that often, really good Varsity teams read my judging philosophy and assume things about the way I will vote in a kritik-centered round. Please cater your round very little to what you think I will vote for; debate how you debate, it's more fun for all of us.

If you are intentionally racist, sexist, etc., or run "racism/sexism/etc. good", not only will I give you pathetically low speaks, I will probably get really mad and tweet about it.

At the end of the day, I love debate, I love judging, and I love being a coach. I have my preferences but am fairly flexible. Have fun and don't be a dick and the round will work out for both of us.

Questions? Email me at alix.dahl@gmail.com

I am an IE coach with limited experience in parlimentary and LD debate. I can generally keep track of flowm but I can't always follow the jargon. Slower is probably a little better.

MSHSL State and Sections 2022 Update

I have been mostly out of debate since graduating in 2018, with some intermittent judging here and there. As such, I don't have many strong argumentative preferences anymore and am willing to listen to whatever you have to say, so long as it is not hateful or violent. I still consider myself fairly competent in terms of my understanding of the mechanics of debate, but please slow down slightly, be clear, and explain topic-specific terms and concepts as much as you can. Thank you!

**Pre-2022 Paradigm**

About me

I debated at Minneapolis Washburn High School for four years. During my time there, I traveled regularly and had some success on the national circuit. I’m now attending UW Madison. I worked at a week-long debate camp this summer and am still somewhat involved with Minneapolis Washburn, so I have the bare minimum of basic knowledge about the 2018-19 topic, but please explain your acronyms and topic-specific phrases!

I went for arguments on every side of the spectrum in high school, and I’ve always been a 2N. I have no argumentative predispositions and will happily listen to anything you want to have a debate about. That being said, my favorite debates are debates over topic-specific Ks, case specific disads and tricky counterplans, and robust case debates. Tech over truth, but within reason, meaning I won’t vote for arguments that are offensive or violent.

Add me to the email chain! My email is gklage@gmail.com. Feel free to email me with questions as well!

Affirmatives

Plan, no plan, whatever – I’ll listen to anything as long as you’re willing to defend it. I read a K aff for most of high school and then switched to exclusively policy affs my senior year. I think policy affs get away with murder when it comes to case debating and often spend far too little time answering case arguments. I think I’m a good judge for presumption and think there’s nothing quite as threatening as deeply developed negative case takeouts, especially when the aff tries to wish them away in under 30 seconds in the 2AC. For the aff, I’m extremely impressed by people who read well-researched, unique affirmatives and can demonstrate their knowledge of their aff in the way they debate the case. I enjoy policy affs more when they have one or two impact scenarios and an actual description of their solvency mechanism, rather than having a bunch of scenarios with very little explanation of how the aff solves them.

For K affs, I think you have to defend some method and it should be related to the resolution. What that means is up for debate! I think a lot of K affs, especially those of the more postmodern variety, often just wait until the 1NC has happened to generate offense – this is really frustrating, because it’s often hard to pin down what these affs exactly do. If I don’t know what your aff does, I’ll be less inclined to vote for you and far more sympathetic to framework arguments.

Disads

I think zero risk is real. The more contrived your internal link chain is, the more I’ll believe this. Despite this, I actually kind of enjoy the politics disad and don’t think intrinsicness arguments are particularly convincing. Disads that emphasize turns case arguments are awesome. I wish more people went for disads and case – I’m perfectly fine voting on a disad regardless of whether it’s net beneficial to a counterplan, especially if you significantly reduce the risk of the case. Impact comparison is everything, and the earlier in the debate you can start it, the better.

Counterplans

I think I have a slightly higher bar for theoretical illegitimacy when it comes to “cheating” counterplans. I love process counterplans, but I’m also sympathetic to the limited range of arguments the affirmative has to respond with. I understand the need to go for theory versus counterplans like these, but if you go for theory I’d still like to hear clash over it. I’m pretty neutral on questions of agents, 50 state and international fiat, etc. – I could be persuaded in pretty much any direction on theory, but I do definitively think the neg gets fiat. I won’t judge kick the counterplan for you – I think it’s pretty abusive and you should just pick a world and stick with it. Tricky perms are fun – but make sure to distinguish between which perm you're going for/answering, especially versus counterplans.

Kritiks

I love kritiks and a large chunk of my 2NRs in high school were the K. The Ks I went for most often were neolib, queer pessimism, and critical geopolitics (lol). Links about the action of the plan are better than general links about the affirmative’s impacts, rhetoric, or the system the aff exists within. Alts are helpful but not necessary – kick them if you want to but make sure the links wholly disprove that the aff is a good idea. Framework is a helpful tool to filter which links I evaluate, but doesn’t wish away entire Ks. The neg can use framework to reduce the chances of the aff outweighing the K. I think the aff probably always gets a perm, but could be convinced otherwise if there was explanation beyond saying “this is a method debate”. Ks versus K affs still need a link, preferably specific to the aff – root cause isn’t a link.

Framework

Both sides of the framework debate are enjoyable to me, and while I love hearing a good K aff, I’m also pretty sympathetic to negative framework arguments. I think the best way for the neg to win a framework debate is to go for a more procedural impact like fairness or limits and isolate clear examples of the way the aff makes debate considerably harder, while making smart case arguments that mitigate the risk that the aff’s education is good for debate. Contextualization goes very far in these debates. For the aff, I think the best way to win is to prove that your aff is contestable, even under the negative’s parameters, and to actually defend your counter interpretation as a model of debate. If you want more thoughts on this, I really agree with Brian Rubaie’s philosophy on framework.

Please don’t be rude or unkind when you go for framework (or any argument, but I find that this is especially a thing in framework debates).

Topicality

I do enjoy debates about non-framework T, but I’m not very well versed in the high school topic and you may have to do some additional explanation to make T arguments clear to me. The more ridiculous your interpretation is, the easier it’ll be for me to buy reasonability arguments from the aff. I don’t know which affs are “core affs” and probably won’t know most of your acronyms – please clarify things like these for my sake!

Other stuff

I'm not a fan of yelling, being rude to your opponents and partner, Pocketbox, ethics violations like stealing prep and clipping, Antonio 95 or the fiat double bind, or talking down to your opponents in cross ex. I like it when people are funny and have personality in cross ex, but I think it's a fine line between being entertaining and being snarky, and the latter will definitely hurt your speaker points. I don't think I should have to read evidence at the end of a round if you're doing the work to contextualize it but I'm not opposed to it if need be. I'm probably not a great judge for any theory in the vein of Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. My idea of average speaker points is ~28.3. Internal links are underrated, and I like it when debaters prioritize explaining their internal links just as much as they do their terminal impacts.

I did policy debate throughout high school and college, and I like seeing a variety of different strategies in rounds.

My hope is that teams who feel more comfortable running traditional policy arguments, and teams who like to run critical arguments, both feel that they can do either when I judge their round. In other words, I do my best to be a blank slate. I have some background in critical theory (and to be straightforward, I'm fond of critical theory), but I expect critical arguments to be adequately explained in round: I will try not to connect the dots for you. I've been told that I have a higher tolerance for a wide variety of arguments -- I'll vote on theory, or ASPEC, or OSPEC, or FX T (etc.) if the opposing team doesn't do a sufficient job defending. Tag-team cross-ex is okay with me.

What I appreciate:

• when you tell me where to flow your arguments
• when you sign post and give road maps
• a good overview when you have the time for it
• clear extensions and cross-applications
• creative and witty arguments (but don't feel forced to come up with a creative argument just for my sake)
• when spreading is reasonably clear
• when teams do explicit impact calculus and/or framework
• when teams show respect for each other and are good sports

Generally, I like that debate is a strategic game with few overt rules. I do my best not to impose disadvantages upon teams who make certain arguments just because the arguments are uncommon, or are typically perceived as being too technical.

If I'm judging your round and it's LD, please understand that I will do my best to follow what you're saying, but that I'm less familiar with the finer points of LD (like meta-ethics) than your typical LD judge. If you run these sorts of arguments, a little extra explanation goes a long way.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

add me to the chain: mariestebbings@gmail.com

last updated: 12/18/2023 (deleting outdated sections, reorganizing, expanding ethics)

background: minneapolis south ‘19 (toc, primarily ran kritikal arguments), light coaching for minneapolis south in ‘19-20. i judge a few national & udl tournaments every year.

online debate: 20% slower please! if my camera is off i’m not there.

tldr: you do you; i will be happiest judging whatever you find exciting/strategic and have spent quality team researching. tech > truth insofar as i try to stifle any lingering debate biases and give an objective decision based on the flow. i won’t write a ballot on an argument that wasn’t made in-round and i try not to impose my opinion on what is true, with the exception of violent/oppressive arguments*. i mostly judge clash debates and my voting record is pretty even.

--

below are some notes on evaluation rules i abide by & guidelines on how to explain arguments, win, & earn high speaks

general: arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be evaluated. i will always follow the ‘ballot of least resistance’ and make the laziest decision possible; tell me what my rfd should say. instructing me on what you believe the key issues are, how you believe arguments interact with each other, and engaging in comparative analysis will help you tremendously.

evidence comparison: i skim evidence throughout the debate. i won’t incorporate my thoughts on your evidence quality into my rfd unless it’s necessary to resolve an argument, but i think a certain degree of judge intervention is necessary in debates over evidence quality to maintain reasonable debate (ex. you can't blatantly lie about what a card says if the other team points out you're lying). i enjoy judging well-researched rounds and think debaters who spend time finding good evidence should be rewarded.

speaker points: ~28.6 is average, ~29.3+ is deserving of a speaker award. being clear, knowing your evidence, making strategic decisions, hard-hitting cx questions/answers -> high speaks. obviously not flowing the debate -> low speaks. if i catch you clipping (repeatedly skipping ~three or more words in cards), i will drop your speaker points regardless of whether the other team points it out.

please flow: i will think you’re silly if you ask for a doc with unread cards deleted unless the prior speech was egregiously skipping around, i will think you’re silly if you respond to an unread or dropped off case, i will think you’re losing the round if you don’t respond to substantive analytics or follow a line-by-line structure.

cx: is binding and i usually flow it.

framework: debates over counter-interps/models make intuitive sense to me. i’m not opposed to 2ars that solely go for impact turns to framework but you should invest hefty amounts of time in framing my decision.

t: i really appreciate model comparisons (caselists, lost/gained neg ground, etc.). please define what reasonability means if you go for it. i never have a ton of topic knowledge & will need extra explanation for acronyms and topic norms.

kritiks: tech > truth means i won’t create my own arbitrary framework interpretation. the more specific your analysis is to the opposing team’s arguments, the better chance you have of winning. aff teams could generally improve their link answers, and neg teams could generally improve their alt solvency.

cp theory: i default to judge kicking cps if asked. the more obviously abusive your counterplans are, the harder it’s going to be for me to suppress a gut-check reaction to cp theory.

das: specific/quality ev > recent ev (explain why the date matters) > quantity of ev.

case: i love case debates that dig into the ev and point out logical holes/inconsistencies in the aff’s ev and internal link chains.

theory: please don’t spread at max speed through your theory blocks. i find counter-interps helpful for framing the majority of theory debates.

misc: re-highlighted ev must be read, not inserted. sending exact text for perms, theory interps/violations, and/or framework interps is a good practice. strict on 1ar-2ar consistency, will give some leeway if the 2nr had new arguments/warrants. no new 2ar cross-applications across different flows.

be nice to new debaters: in clearly asymmetrical debates (ex. a team with 5 bids vs a team at their first varsity tournament), taking the time to slow down and 'over-explain' your arguments so all the debaters can engage with the round is a much more persuasive strategy for high speaker points than outspreading and out-jargoning your less experienced opponents.

--

*ethics: facilitating an environment where debaters are reasonably protected from immediate hazards to their wellbeing overrides my commitment to attempting to be a neutral arbitrator. i reserve the right to auto L with the lowest speaks possible if a debater’s in-round words or actions are oppressive or threaten anyone’s safety. however, i prefer to avoid using the ballot as a punitive instrument and assume fixable ignorance (not intentional violence) on ‘gray area’ issues.

while i strongly empathize with frustration over the community’s seeming inability to address intra-debate violence, including the continued presence of individuals who are oppressive or harm others, i refuse to adjudicate out-of-round grievances in a competitive context. if desired, i will assist any debater in talking to a tournament administrator, ombudsperson, or coach instead.

--

good luck, have fun! feel free to email me with any questions.