---[ Key Points ]---

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

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

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

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

---[ Personal Info ]---

Pronouns: (They/Them)

Email: Martin.Kloster@jacks.sdstate.edu

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

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

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

---[ General Information ]---

/ Evidence /

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

/ Speed and Performance /

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

/ Default Weighing Preferences /

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

Don't get abusive with spikes and blips.

/ Kritiks /

Running K's:

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

Defending against K's:

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

/ Theory /

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

/ Arguments /

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

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

/ Trigger Warnings /

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

/ Variations /

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---[ Public Forum ]---

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

---[ Extempt ]---

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

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

tl;dr: Read what's bolded.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

Also feel free to ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Public Forum <——

Sometimes I get thrown into PF and I seriously question why. I prefer line-by-line analysis with smart analytics rather than you trying to dumb down your opponent's argument and then refuting a strawman. Go after their links, reduce the harm of their impacts, and outweigh.

——> Any Speech Event <——

I spent my debate career weaseling my way out of doing IE’s. I don’t have a TON of formal experience with it but I was the opening attorney for mock trial and I’ve done a decent amount of public speaking, so I know enough about what makes a good speech to follow along, but don’t have high hopes when it comes to technical feedback.

——> LD <——

tech > truth, generally. But if something is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false you can probably wipe it off my flow by just telling me “this is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false” with like an extra sentence of analysis.

Even though I can certainly handle flowing a bunch of responses down, and I understand the strategic appeal of doing so, I think I fall more on the side of leveling 1-3 responses to a contention rather than, say, five. Three responses to EVERYTHING that your opponent says is also probably pushing it. I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 2+ minutes alone on framework? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I used to say at this point that I like topicality debates. I take that back. I expect to be in physical pain on this topic if y'all start to quibble about what countries are in the WANA region. Update: I was right! These debates do nothing but give me a headache.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

Yeah paraphrasing is probably bad for evidence ethics but my standard above applies, I just encourage y'all to exercise strict scrutiny if your opponent starts paraphrasing.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make a 2-3 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

Policy

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

LD

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

Public Forum

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

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.

I am the head speech and debate coach for Tea Area. I’ve competed at both the high school and collegiate level and have coached since 2019.

Clear, organized communication impresses me over jargon. Talk at a speed that you feel comfortable, but do not sacrifice comprehensibility. If I cannot understand your speech, I cannot vote on your points. I value professionalism throughout the entire round—in crossfire especially. I flow arguments and do factor dropped arguments into my decision; however, debaters should clearly weigh their arguments, showing what is the most important, and tell me why they win the round.