tahir.ahsan0@gmail.com

Debate Bio

LD debater in MN (2012-2016)

Irregular LD Judge (2018-present)

Comfort with non-stock material

If you've sought out my paradigm, this is probably the relevant material for you. As a general note, it's been 5 years since I last encountered the following with any regularity.

Theory: I'll accept it in relevant applications. Unless there is an extreme case, I default to drop the argument when accepting the theory shell.

Kritiks: I'm not entirely opposed to kritiks, but if they are lacking a strong connection to the opposing case and/or come across as something being read regardless of what your opponent brings to the round, they won't mean much to me.

With both theory shells and kritiks, I do not look favorably to instances where these are used merely to create timesinks in the opponent's next speech.

Preferences

Don't misgender your opponent when their pronouns have been provided (seriously, this happens about once a tournament and the most common reason I decrease speaker points). Better yet, just refer to them as "the Aff" or "the Neg."

I am fine with most speed. Please do keep in mind that remote debating conditions may change this. Slow down for tags, sources/authors, and key elements. Arguments that rely on your opponent missing them are not good arguments.

Always roadmap before your speech. I will ask for one before rebuttal starts if it isn't provided. It doesn't have to be a "quick roadmap" either as long as you aren't making arguments during it. The more specific you are the better; it's fine to deviate from the roadmap due to time constraints during the actual speech. Note that you should still be signposting your arguments in the speech.

Flex prep is allowed.

Unless the difference between the values is significant, don't spend time on them. I've spent too many hours hearing meaningless value debates.

Unless the standard/criterion has been conceded (or very one-sided), you'll be much more likely to get my ballot by connecting your impacts into both frameworks.

I won't make your extensions for you. Refuting your opponents argument does not constitute an extension. They are separate. A good extension will be able to inform a late audience member on a round's key argument and it's importance in framework(s) while staying concise.

Weigh the arguments. You should be telling me why your impacts should win you the round even if I didn't buy your rebuttals against the opposing impacts.

Speaker Points

I average 28 on the 30 point scale. Speaks will be lowered as a result of any condescension, bigotry, or over aggressiveness.

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!

Hey everyone, my name is Alex (He/Him).

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, alexanderb1029@gmail.com

I'll vote on anything as long as it is extended across the flow. That said, anything bigoted or harmful said in round will get you a loss and tanked speaks.

Please keep time well, it's fine if you're finishing a sentence or something quick after time ends but if you bring up anything that is separate on the flow after time, I won't write it down.

Please extend tag lines for cards, I also follow the flow pretty closely for my RFDs. Voters in your last speech will have an impact. Remember your speeches are your opportunity to write my flow, tell me what I should be focusing on.

I think it's important, however, I don't flow CX/CF, so if you make a point during it please extend it.

For everyone's sake please signpost, if you jump around in your rebuttal I'll do my best to flow it, but it's your job to make sure it's clearly articulated.

Evidence ethics is fairly important to debate so any issues with that I will tend to default to the other side for the card if you have bad sources/misrepresented evidence if conflicts arise.

For LD, I will vote on Ks or Ts, just explain them well and expound on the standards.

For PF, I'm fairly critical of progressive debate in PF, that said I will vote for whatever as long as it is argued well in the round.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. If you plan on spreading, send out a speech doc beforehand. And if you're going to spread, please enunciate. If I don't catch what you say because you're spreading and don't send a speech doc (even if you send one I cant promise ill keep my eyes glued to it), you're responsible for what makes it only my flow and what doesn't.

Finally, please have a good time. It won't affect my judging at all, but a good-natured debate that everyone can take something out of is in my opinion worth more than a win or loss.

For background I am a current student at the University of Minnesota, I was in debate from 7th grade through senior year, I was in varsity LD for most of my time, but have competed in congress as well as PF.

If you do a sufficiently impressive magic trick or yo-yo trick in the round, perfect speaks.

I prefer traditional styles of debate and that is the only thing I have experience with. I have no experience with progressive or Ks, but I will be open-minded if you manage to get me to understand it and convince me.

I enjoy well-reasoned arguments. Explain why an argument is worth voting for rather than simply stating that you won on a point.

Spread at your own risk. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

Humor is appreciated as an effective persuasive technique. In short: funny = more speaks.

Be kind and respectful to your opponent. Debate is an educational activity, not a shouting match.

hi, im sriiani :)

she/her/hers

yes to the email chain- srijanidatta11@gmail.com

I’m a first year out and am a freshman at UPenn studying global health and data science. I was on the local Minnesota and national circuits in LD for 4 years and now coach at Eden Prairie. I pretty much solely did traditional debate as I come from a small school with non-existent resources.

STAND WHEN YOU SPEAK

Prefs

Trad- 1

Policy- 2

Phil- 3

K's/T- 4

Tricks- strike

General

I enjoy traditional debate that involves well-developed arguments and genuine clash. I hate when it's two ships passing in the night. Impact analysis and weigh weigh weigh!!! Utilize your framework and always link back. Link into your opponent's framework as well. Tell me clearly WHY you win. Give me voters, worlds comparison, and crystalize. If you can write a clear ballot story for me, l'lI be inclined to accept it. I debated at a very small school with non-existent resources. Reading from 4 min of pre-written prep isn't favorable in front of me and results in low speaks.

Note- just because you're reading a progressive case this doesn't give you the freedom to simply not interact with more traditional things like framework. Now, this doesn't mean you have to read counter framework yourself. Simply contesting the framework or cross applying your ROB is enough. If there is a framework debate that is where I'll always be starting my evaluation of the round.

DAs- I love them. Really no issue with anything just make sure you have a strong link chain and impact it out. Give me clear impact calculus and weigh!

Plan Affs/CPs- just make sure you have a proper plan text and net benefits. I have no issues with these.

T-T is fine, but only run it if you have a legitimate violation. For 1NR theory, counter-interps that the aff clearly links into are just a waste of time. On things like disclosure theory, I will always err on the side of not voting on it. I think disclosure/wiki violations are so abusive to small school debaters. Even if your opponent doesn't have a clear counter interp/standards, but are making arguments about accessiblity/small schools/fairness I'll always buy them. Don't ever read friv theory.

Phil- I don't know much phil lit myself, but if explained well enough for me to understand, I have no issue voting on it. Err on side of over-explaining.

K's- don't know much K lit. Probably most comfortable with set col and cap K. If explained well enough for me to understand, I have no issue voting on others. Err on side of over-explaining.

Cross

I like debaters who know how to utilize their cross to get confessions from their opponent. You have three minutes please use them wisely.

Being aggressive in cross is awesome, but remember there's a fine line between aggressive and rude.

Speed and Prep

I'm good with speed. If I can't understand you I'll yell clear, but if you can't have clarity, don't read fast. There is a huge difference between debaters who can actually spread and debaters who just think they can.

Don't steal prep and always tell me how much you have remaining.

At the end of the day, we debate because we have fun doing it so let's have a good time. Bring the energy and unique arguments!

"That's the number one rule of data journalism: come in with an agenda, and bend the rules however you need to, in order to prove your point." - Jon Bois

To preempt questions in-round, here are my perspectives on things while I'm judging.

Speaker Points:

I typically judge speaker points based on two things: public speaking ability and quality of sources used. For public speaking I'm looking for clear articulation, eye contact, etc. It is better to speak clearly and well in a succinct manner than it is to speak poorly but verbosely. I will typically assign speaker points from 25-30, only dipping below 25 if you use rhetoric that is actively bigoted, racist, etc, or abusive to the resolution/definitions. You can score a 30 and lose the round, you can score a 25 and win the round.

Theory:

I am not personally a fan of theory debate. If you run theory in a way that is neither abusive nor inaccessible to the other debater then I will tolerate it, but I am more likely to respond to debates on grounds of framework and resolution.

Spreading:

I have no real problem with spreading, just be wary that it can reduce your effectiveness as a speaker (i.e. potentially fewer speaker points) and harm your ability to signpost clearly.

Signposting

Signposting and roadmaps are the most useful tools at your disposal to communicate to your judge why you won the round. USE THEM. If something is not on my flow, I will not weigh it. If the debate is sufficiently close odds are I will judge on clarity and speaker points.

My Background:

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate from 2019-2022, and have some experience judging PF.

Yes, I want to be on the chain. email: doddsbw1@gmail.com

PLEASE HAVE FUN! debate is fun :) engage in practices that benefit our community and represent it well. Debate is an activity in which many, myself included, have found their passion--use your common sense and leave debate better than you found it.

TL;DR: I am a tech/flow judge. Weigh. Be accessible.

I’m the LD coach for Minnetonka High School. I did debate all 4 years of high school on the Minnesota circuit, mainly. Only competed circuit like once a season.

Alright, now onto the actual paradigm. General stuff at the top, circuit stuff at the very bottom.

Equality in Forensics Winter Championship

Like any tournament on the national circuit, this tournament pulls together an eclectic mix of localities & experience levels. Please be understanding of differences in norms and accommodate each other in good faith. The emphasis I place on accessibility will be even stronger at this tournament.

Also, since we are online, I'd appreciate it if speech docs were shared and if you're extra clear.

I have a lot of patience for tech issues but very little for taking advantage of them for prep theft (and I will know if that's what you're doing).

If you're a novice and I am judging you

LD Novice Guide: A little cheat sheet/glossary for speech times, flow structure, case structure, and general debate terms.

Nov/Dec 2023 Topic

Please do evidence comparison on this topic! It's another one of those topics where there's constantly various studies flying back and forth and it seems like debaters have forgotten how to do good evidence comparison.

In general, I'd prefer it if you ran wholeres, or if you only spec mechanism/enforcement of the plan. Really don't want to see clash-avoiding plans where just fracking is banned in like two states. Also wouldn't like to see PICs.

General notes

I am definitely tech>truth, and I prefer good argumentation>presentation. Don’t be monotonous or spread at locals, but otherwise be as technical and use as much jargon as you want. You can assume I have some topic knowledge, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your arguments clearly. If I have no clue what you're actually arguing, my threshold for voting against the arg is low.

You need to explain the implications of CX concessions, drops, turns, etc. If you make an argument, don't expect me to implicate it for you. Rounds are very hard to decide when the debaters are so wrapped up in the line-by-line that they fail to explain the implications of the line-by-line.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE extend specific cards and warrants if your opponent reads a generic block against them! A huge missed opportunity I see all the time in all divisions is debaters responding to generic blocks/arguments without realizing that their original contention contained a card/sentence/warrant that accounted for or had an embedded response against the block. Be specific, be nuanced, and be surgical.What separates a good and a great debater is the extent to which they're able to be specific and nuanced. Debaters who rely on broad strokes instead of surgical nuance will almost always lose to debaters who know and can explain the specific mechanisms of arguments.

On the MN circuit, please keep it relatively trad. I will err heavily on the side of trad norms, so be circuit-y at your own risk. Be accessible, please.

A walkthrough of my decision making process:

1. Evaluate which framework to use and any other constraints like burdens or contentious definitions.
2. Look at the articulated offense under these frameworks.
3. Look at the defense on said offense; this helps me determine risk of offense.
   
   
4. Evaluate the weighing done on this offense under the framework (s).
5. Make my decision based on who has the most offense under the framework.

I place an emphasis on good, explicit weighing. If you don’t weigh you won’t get my ballot.

Some people that have influenced my understanding of debate (too lazy to link their paradigms so just look them up lol)

-Raymond Zhang: coach freshman and sophomore year, learned the basics from him

-Sam Anderson: judged often by him and agree w his paradigm

-Nick Smith: judged by him a lot and agree w his paradigm

SPEAKER POINTS

I'll default to somewhere between 28-28.5; points will go up or down from there.

Things that will get you high speaks:

-Any kind of turn, but especially impact turns

-Not using any analytics--don’t just read a card as a block without explaining the implications

-Being extremely clear where you are on the flow

Circuit Pref Shortcut:

LARP/Trad-1

T-2

Neg Ks-3

Simple phil-3

Theory-4

K affs/tricks/phil that you don’t even understand and are just spitting out because you found an overcomplicated Levinas FW-Strike

Unless otherwise instructed, I default to CI and DTD on theory.

If you are using fiat to get out of neg offense, you should make some sort of justification for your version of fiat-fiat comes in all shapes and sizes and interpretations.

UPDATED 12/1/22
Hello :). My name is Kaiden, I go by He/Him pronouns.

Current Senior and Varsity LD Debater at St. Michael Albertville.
Please include me in email chains: sparklesde@gmail.com

NO SPREADING PLEASE. I have a hard time following spreading. I am totally fine with talking fast but if I am unable to understand the words you are saying, its not my problem if they don't go on the flow. Email chains are mostly for me to look back on after the round + remembering and correctly writing down tags and important statistics.

I'll vote on anything as long as it is extended across the flow. That said, anything bigoted or harmful said in round will get you a loss and tanked speaks.

Please extend tag lines for cards.
I follow the flow pretty closely for my RFDs. Voters in your last speech will have an impact.

I don't flow CX/CF, so if you make a point during it please extend it. This doesn't mean that CX doesn't matter, but please use the questions and responses in your future speeches.

I am comfortable with lay debates, save Ks for another judge.

T's are fine if there is good reason, but if it feels like the T is being used solely to win the debate and not because of a loss of education, fairness, etc. I am unlikely to vote on it unless it goes uncontested.

I will disclose if both sides want

I will not disclose speaks

Most importantly have fun :)

Email: aerinengelstad@gmail.com

Eagan '23, Emory '27

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Prefs shortcut:

1. Policy v Policy
2. Policy v K
3. Phil (Kant, ect.)
4. K v K
5. Weird phil, weird k's, theory
6. (strike) Tricks

Tech over truth obviously

I have a high threshold for a warrant. If you do not meet that threshold then it is not a complete argument and I will not vote on it.

I agree a lot with Archan Sen, look at his paradigm for more in-depth takes.

I default condo and judge kick. I do not vote on presumption, I vote on a risk of offense because I do not believe that no risk exists (outside of dropped arguments).

I won't evaluate out of round arguments/adhoms.

Policy: I lean towards these arguments. I read a lot of process cp's and policy arguments in high school so it is what I'm most comfortable with. I love disads and cps. Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more -- it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence. I appreciate card docs that look nice and speeches that are organized and consistent with the doc. I'll reward it with high speaks.

T: Love these debates. Slow down on analytics/I need to be able to flow you. RVI's usually don't ever have a warrant, honestly wouldn't waste your breath on it. I tend to hate nebel T. I tend to think that plan text in a vaccum is true.

Impact turns: I love them. No personal qualms with spark or wipeout.

Theory: I'll evaluate it, but I hate frivolous theory and am very partial to vote against it. Default to competing interps.

K's + Kaffs: Didn't go for these as often in my career. High theory/pomo k's are not a winner in front of me because I don't know much about them and I am very persuaded by psychanalysis false for most identity-based critiques. Fairness is an impact and I think that it's a very good one, I tend to think that clash impacts in T-FWRK are less strategic.

Phil: I gave the Kant lecture at camp so I can judge and evaluate philosophical arguments. Dense phil and tricky phil are not a winner for me; see high threshold for an argument above, and I tend to get confused. Partial to util is truetil.

Tricks: see "threshold for a warrant" above.

Don't be cringe

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program in Lakeville. I'm in my 9th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

I strongly believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and KNOW your case. This will guide my critique of your debate.

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. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. 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 one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

If you plan to argue the resolution is unfair, I am not your judge. I believe it is a waste of time to complain about the resolution rather than doing what you should be doing, debating it.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. I expect you to take your RFD graciously as well as shake your opponent’s hand.

Thank you and Good luck!!

I was a policy debater in high school for GRHS, Grand Rapids, MN. I have a BA in Political Science and Philosophy from Hamline University, where I was also a Logic tutor. I am a Communications Consultant and parent to a debater at AVHS, Apple Valley, MN.

Clear and concise logical arguments are most persuasive. Evidence that is germane to the topic and to the particular arguments is always welcome. But the point of debate isn't to measure who has the best evidence, it's who is able to string pieces of evidence together logically to argue their point. The activity isn't called "Reading Research Really Fast," it's called "Debate." You can read a lot of evidence, but if you're not deploying it logically in an argument, you won't be persuasive.

For Congressional Debaters:

Congressional Debate is not just Extemporaneous Speaking with extra time to prepare. You are there to simulate an actual congress. This means that debating amendments, negotiating deals, and strengthening the bills that are before you is supposed to be something that you do. If you're in the opposition and you're arguing that the amount of money the bill allocates to nuclear power would be better spent on wind and solar, then offer an amendment to that effect. If you're on the pro side and you're getting killed because the opposition is successfully arguing that fining Big Pharma for price increases doesn't address insurance company profits driving costs, then amend the bill to address that problem. Compromise, negotiation and creative problem solving are skills that this type of debate is supposed to give you practice at. Engaging in it will also make the debate much more interesting and enjoyable for the debaters and the judges.

Debaters who engage in amendments in good faith, and demonstrate skills at negotiation, compromise, and creative problem solving, will be rewarded in ranking.

Greetings,

My name is Sara George. My pronouns are she/her. I am a school administrator you can call me Dr. George or Mrs. George .

I am excited to see you debate and speak! I am a former policy debater and competed in oratory, extemp and dramatic duo back in the 1990s. I retired from coaching speech, policy debate, and LD debate in the early 2000s. Now, I am a school administrator with a doctorate in Educational Leadership and the mom of a speech competitor & LD debater.

Speech Paradigm:

1) Be clear, tell me a / the story, make we want to believe you, and I'll award speaker points accordingly.

2) I want to see that you as a speaker want to connect to me as the audience.

LD Paradigm:

1) I don't care how fast you do or do not talk as long as you are clear and your argumentation makes sense. Debate is about the exchange of ideas; talking pretty is a bonus.

2) I want to hear well reasoned cases. Weird cases and critiques are fine, but they need to be well reasoned.

3) Sign posting helps me and it helps you to show me that you've addressed each of your competitor's arguments.

4) Arguing is a skill that is worth investing in. Being rude is not a skill, it is a problem. Argue with your opponent in a sound and rational way, and you'll earn my ballot.

A note about debating on education related topics:

I am not interested in hearing any teacher bashing by students. It is rude. Your teachers and coaches took the time to help you get here and help teach you how to debate. Don't argue anti-education perspectives in front of me. I am totally open to educational reform perspectives. However, it is incredibly rude to make teacher / coach volunteer judges listen to an hour of anti-teacher rhetoric on their weekends.

Policy Paradigm:

It has been a while since I've lived and breathed policy. I can listen and flow quickly, but for the love of all things good, please sign post!

I am totally open to listening to reasonable critiques of actual societal problems like the marginalization of people based on sexuality, race, perceived gender or a world view that hurts real people.

Arguing is a skill that is worth investing in. Being rude is not a skill, it is a problem. Argue with your opponent in a sound and rational way, and you'll earn my ballot.

Hi! I'm Sophia :)

Pronouns she/her

I competed varsity LD for two years and Varsity PF for one year

Impacts are very important, I want to know WHY you specifically should win. Make sure you WEIGH impacts and address all arguments.

I will not tolerate any disrespect, racism or sexism. If you exhibit any of these behaviors you will automatically lose the round.

As I've been on debate for several years I am good with fast talkers and speed, however make sure you speak clearly.

Please time your own rounds, I will time as well.

Debate should be fun and exciting! Have fun with it and be creative!

HI! My name is Sofia Ishal I am an LD coach at Apple Valley and I did LD debate throughout hs. :)

I am now a student at the University of Minnesota. I consider myself a very traditional leaning judge but still, tech > truth so take these both into consideration with the way you debate in the round.

Most of my debate influence/knowledge has come from my HS coaches: Nick Smith, Cori Roberts, Alharith Dahmeh, Amadea Datel, and Jacob Nails

I have Judged roughly 60 rounds ranging from Novice, JV, and Varsity as four rounds of PF and four rounds of World Schools Debate

JV/VARSITY:

I am not a circuit debater so run anything circuity at your own risk; I know a semi-decent amount about circuit args theory, counter plans, K's,spec, etc. just do a clear job extending it and explaining why I should vote on it. with that being said I do not want to see circuit behavior during local tournaments. I am okay with speed, but anything faster than fast conversation may get lost in my flow. Do not assume that I will catch everything on my speech doc if you do decide to spread it. If there is an email chain, add me: Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

NOVICE:

I have a very good understanding of Phil frameworks, but please do a good job extending it and telling me why I should weigh under it for the round. If you run anything circuit as a novice (theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it. and even if your opponent can interact with it, there is still a very small chance I will vote on it, And it will lead to very low speaker points.

For both:

You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will let you finish your sentence but will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll start speaking around 27 and move up based on how the round goes :)

PF:

I have judged four rounds of PF LOL and have a semi-ok(emphasis on semi) grasp on how to evaluate a PF round, same attitude towards tricks and K's I was not a circuit debater... like at all so run any of these at your own risk :)

WSD:

I did not do WSD however I understand the speech times and the general gist of it. from what I noticed WSD tends to avoid a clash, pls pls pls have a clash, it'll make me so happy :). I am not familiar with all of the community norms but I will knock during the first and last min to signify protected time. Makes the extensions of previous arguments clear in rebuttal speeches and stray away from talking fast.

BQ

I did some BQ in high school but not a ton( and not a lot competitively) however having done and coached LD I am apt enough to judge BQ. My big thing is please have a clash and explain clearly link level arguments. In BQ definitions are going to determine a lot in the rounds so make sure you have clear and extended definitions and you should be good.

Disclosure:

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it, and I write extensive comments on ballots.

Especially if I disclose, but in all cases, please ask me questions, but stray away from extensive post-rounding(In the case that I disclose), if there is anything I can do to make it make more sense to you, I am happy to do so. please feel free to email me: atSofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

please be respectful to your opponent and stay away from racist, homophobic xenophobic, etc remarks; these will lead you to being dropped!!! Being rude is never acceptable EVER I have and will tank speaks.

I love judging laid-back rounds where the competitors are having fun and are friendly with each other so try to strive for this! debate before anything else is an activity meant to be enjoyed!!

Speak loud and at a reasonable pace.

email: oreonav6@gmail.com

If you’re making an email chain, please add me.

I am a varsity LD debater. However, I have not debated the November/December LD topic, and I’m not familiar with the topic literature, so keep that in mind as you explain your arguments.

I prefer traditional debate, but I do have a general understanding of kritiks, theory/T etc.

If you’re going to speak quickly, you should still be speaking clearly. I can handle a fair amount of speed, but if I literally can’t understand you, it will go over my head which will not be beneficial for your ballot.

I can't understand spreading. I will only use speech docs to evaluate in-round claims regarding evidence ethics, never to catch up on flowing. I am fine with the speed of top-level circuit PF rounds.

I do not know how to evaluate Kritiks and theory, so I will not. I will follow everything outlined here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

My desire is to intervene as little as possible, so I need you to communicate as much as you can to me. I am some combination of truth and tech - tech in the sense I will give consistently extended arguments more weight and consider all entered arguments, and truth in the sense that I will give sensible arguments more weight and discard illogical arguments.

**District Quals-specific: No feedback, no disclosure. Thank you.**

If time permits and both debaters want disclosure, I will probably need a few minutes to prepare my RFD. In that case, do not discuss the round until I disclose. I will take as long as I need, so don't ask for disclosure if you're not willing to wait. Afterwards, y'all can ask me absolutely anything you want to further your own education and growth as debaters.

If time permits and either debater does not want disclosure, anyone can ask me for feedback, either of a general sort or with specific questions intended to learn, not to influence my decision. I will answer such questions immediately to the best of my ability.

Hello, I'm Zach, he/him/his

4 years in the circuit, Varsity Lincoln Douglas at Eden Prairie High School.

I want to be on the email chain: zakirkeby@gmail.com. I believe strongly in evidence ethics, do not misrepresent your sources. I like to follow along on the case document. However, speak clearly, I will not flow off a doc.

Please, if you want speaks, weigh. I expect clash. You must interact with your opponents case and evidence. Extend, weight, signpost. Speak clearly. Speed is fine, if I cannot understand you, I will call clear. I won't flow what I don't hear. I expect you to manage your own time and your opponents time.

Overall, be civil. I will not tolerate any incivility.

WE MUST DEBATE

-

Hi! Have a great day and be well!

About

Put me on the email chain- vkundav@gmail.com

Eagan '23, UMN '27

I debated LD for four years at Eagan, competing at a mix of circuit and local tournaments

Check outSam Anderson's paradigmif you need more detail. I agree a lot with what he has to say

He/Him, you don't have to call me "judge"

Important

I'll listen to pretty much anything (exceptions are no bigotry, no personal attacks), but I won't vote on it if I don't understand it

Be respectful. (I will drop you if this becomes a problem, especially if your opponent points it out)

I'll disclose a decision if both debaters are okay with it

I will accommodate whatever you need to be comfortable (I have no preference if you stand or sit, wear a mask, debate on paper or read from a computer, have you camera on or off, wear a suit or pajamas, sit in the front or back of the room, etc. as long as I can hear you clearly when you speak)

Feel free to send me an email for pre/post round comments + questions (please add your code/name and round #)

PF

I don't have experience judging PF, but you can consider me tech over truth. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. I have a semi-circuity background in LD so I am comfortable with evaluating policy-esque arguments (see my LD paradigm for more detail)

Policy

See my LD paradigm below. I've watched a handful of policy rounds and am familiar with the structure of policy arguments, but assume I have no topic knowledge. I won't be able to flow a fast policy round, make your doc look nice

LD

Speed:

I won't be able to flow spreading, especially online. If I can't flow it I won't evaluate it. 'Fast' speed for locals is fine

Argument Preferences (These are just my defaults, I am happy to be convinced why certain arguments are good/bad):

Spend more time explaining things I'm less likely to understand if they're important to the round

I'll vote off the flow

Traditional LD - Go for it

Policy - Multiple condo is probably bad unless the aff is a plan, otherwise policy stuff is great

Phil/Framework - Explain it well, I liked real world examples

Theory - Theory is good, frivolous theory is bad (unless it's funny). Fairness is probably good. Default to reasonability, drop the argument, but convince me otherwise.

K - Not super familiar with K lit so explain it well

Tricks - Just don't (Unless it's funny, then maybe)

Speaks

You'll get higher speaks if youmake smart strategic choicesor if youmake me laugh

I'll bump your speaks up (at my discretion) if you:

Format your doc nicely (if there is an email chain)

Ask your opponent a question that's not debate related in cross (especially if it's funny)

Hi! My name is Tyler Martin, and I’m completely new to judging debate! I’m interested in whatever you have for me; just be smart, try your best, and have fun! Of course, be respectful to yourselves and other competitors. You got this, I’m rooting for you!

I was told to write something here

Dont be rude and debate well!

Hi! I'm a current college freshman attending University of St Andrews and I have four years of traditional LD experience, including being a national qualifier and a MN state semifinalist . I'm just going to cross-post my head coach's paradigm here because I agree with it, but if you have any specific questions, please ask!

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall:Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you.

usc '26 (NDT/CEDA Policy)

edina '23 (HS Policy)

he/him

Hi! My name is Sabeeh and I am a freshman at USC. In high school I did policy on the MN and nat circ. I worked at NSD Philly as an LD lab leader summer of 2023. TLDR: I flow and will judge the round in front of me, regardless of my argumentative preferences.

-----

Please add me to the chain -- sabeehmirza05@gmail.com -- if you have any questions before or after a round feel free to email.

Don't be racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc.

I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand or that I cannot explain at the end of the round. Both of us will be unhappy with my decision.

I have no problem with speed, but you need to be clear. There should be a distinction between your card and tag voice. Give me an indicator if you are moving on to the next card (ie. AND, NEXT, etc).

tech>truth

General Stuff

Overview

I have gone for a big stick aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/planless aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me. I'm not ideologically opposed to most arguments. Do not read anything that will make the round an unsafe place.

DA/CP

I won't judgekick unless you tell me to. Not a ton that needs to be said here otherwise.

Ks

My knowledge and experience is mainly in set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. Don't be afraid to kick the alt and go for framework if you're winning it. I won't default to a "middle of the road" framework unless a debater introduces one, or unless the framework debate is truly irresolvable.

For kaffs: I've both read a kaff and gone for T against them -- I don't think that I am particularly picky on arguments. Kaffs need to be conscious of presumption -- I need to know what voting aff does and/or what it endorses.

T/Theory

Make my ballot as clear as possible. Make the violation clear, show me in round abuse.

I don't have a good number of condo that I will stand firmly by. It's more about how it's debated as opposed to how many condo.

To win a theory shell, I need to have flowed it (read: slow down and be clear).

LD

1 - Policy

1 - Ks

2 - Trad

4 - Phil and Tricks (will need HEAVY explanation and judge instruction)

*Frivolous theory is not something I particularly want to judge/vote for, but will do it if it wins the flow (my threshold for voting on a friv theory shell is high)

Hey there!
My name is Jeanelle Nacionales (she/her) and I am a fourth year varsity lincoln-douglas debater at Robbinsdale Armstrong High School!
Here is how I am going to judge this round!
Cases: I enjoy a more traditional debate and case structure, but I am open to new and interesting arguments!
Arguments: Everything links back into the criterion, so it is important to have a criterion debate. You should extend your arguments and if you don’t explain why. Also, please weigh and tell me why you should win the round!
Speaking: Please do not spread! I can understand you if you speak fast but be sure to speak clearly. Also make sure to signpost!
General: If this is not obvious… do not say anything which is discriminatory or harmful! Debate should be a safe place to have fun and learn more about society, let’s not ruin that.
*This is kind of a joke, but not really… if you can bring up Taylor Swift somehow… I will give you +1 speakers!
I am excited to be your judge and good luck! :)

About Me

I was on the debate team for five years in Lakeville, Minnesota. I competed in (mostly) LD for four years, then chose to spend my senior year coaching and judging for various reasons. As a debater, I spent a good majority of my time on the local circuit. I most frequently ran consequentialist frameworks so am best at evaluating those rounds. I went to ~10 national circuit tournaments throughout my entire debate career and only cleared when in the novice/jv divisions. I graduated high school in 2023, and now I’m coaching Novice LD for West Des Moines Valley while I attend Drake University in Des Moines.

Judging Overview

If you are jv/novice especially I will likely be timing you, but obviously it's your responsibility to watch your own time. At most you can finish a sentence after time runs out (which doesn't mean a 15-second-long run on sentence) and I won’t flow new arguments made after time runs out. If I need to cut you off, and if it is an issue it will show on your speaks.

I’m not a fan of spreading- flowing high speeds was never a strength of mine and that is important for you as the debater to understand. I appreciate speech docs for faster speeches especially and I’ll use them to supplement your argument- but if I can't comprehend what you're saying without reading the doc, I'll be reluctant to put in on the flow. If you aren't sure if your pace is going to be too fast, play it safe and go slower because if you're speaking faster than i can write, it just wont be on the flow. It is not my responsibility to yell "clear", it is your responsibility to speak clearly. If your opponent spreads that doesn't mean you need to, I don't expect debaters to respond to every point thrown at them-and I will know who read my paradigm :)

I love unique and fun arguments if they aren’t problematic, there’s real evidence to back it up, and it actually makes sense. Rounds with "strange" cases are more interesting to follow so if you have one please read it! If sources back you up then tech>truth all the way.

Pretty much nothing from crossX goes towards the decision (the exception would be if you say something offensive and it is worthy of dropping the debater) unless you bring it up in speech. I’ll listen but am likely also typing in comments from the previous speech or fixing my flow, so make sure you explain what was said truthfully and well.

Spend time on extensions! Explain what the card/arg is and why it matters in the round. Just saying that your opponent dropped something is not a strong extension and I won't be able to properly weigh it.

As of now, I am okay with basic circuit arguments- but when running them still make you explain it how you would to someone that isn't well versed in these things. Explaining it is everything- I won't sit there and try to figure out what you mean if it isn't developed enough in round. My debate background was on the local MN circuit.

I've voted off of a trick a total of 1 time. If you want to try to make this 2 times go for it- but odds are not in your favor. You're better off reading almost anything else.

Give voters at the end of your rebuttals!! Saving some time in your speech to tell me what the most important issues are will only help you and I believe it's a necessary part of debate.

If you are a higher-level debater and know that you are debating a novice, be nice. Win the round but make it a positive educational experience for them, as that is what debate is for.

Speaks are generally 28+ unless you run/say something that’s offensive or problematic. If you want to boost your speaks, talk clearly, show emotion, and just be nice :)

If you have any questions or plan to make an email chain (which I highly recommend)-kristinneary04@gmail.com

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.

Put me on the email chain: hannahowenspierre@gmail.com

About me: I debated for four years in LD at Edina High School in Minnesota. I've only ever debated and judged traditional debate, but I've watched progressive LD rounds. I was also the NSDA 2022 National Champion in LD and 2023 Top Speaker in LD. I won the 2023 Minnesota State tournament as well.

TLDR: Offensive rebuttals and extensions of offense are the key to winning any debate

Cases: Most importantly, have quality evidence. Don't mistag or miscite sources. Make sure to portray your sources accurately and don't extrapolate or exaggerate the claims they make. And make sure your sources are credible. Quality evidence from peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses, etc are always preferable

Cross-Examination: This mostly goes towards speaking points AND it's good to incorporate into rebuttals. Too often cross is wasted on clarifying Q's. It is designed for offensive attacks and leading questions. Think about a lawyer's CX. CX in law is designed for trapping your witness and pointing out flaws in their case. The same is true for debate. Not just to ask about things you forgot to write down that you then don't even use. And always use the full cross-time.

Rebuttals: The biggest thing is clash. This means having offensive and specific blocks against your opponent's case. Offensive blocks are otherwise known as turns. I count evidence critique as a very good rebuttal as well. Evidence critique is often the most effective rebuttal in my experience. Don't let cross-application of the case be the only form of “rebuttal," because that's not a rebuttal, it's just restating your 1AC or 1NC. Signpost. Number your arguments and answer arguments in the order they were presented.

Clear extensions of arguments in rebuttals are also key (Extend contention 1 which says....). Extensions should contain the claim, warrant, and impact but they can still be brief. Explain the link and impact chains clearly and concisely. I was a big fan of pre-written extensions for the sake of clarity and time.

Weighing impacts is really important. In every debate, there is at least one argument being won on both sides (OK, almost every debate). The easiest way to do this is through specific impacts such as terminal impact evidence. Describe how many people are affected, how severely, etc to weigh against opponents' impacts.

Framework debate determines how you weigh the round. It unfortunately usually ends up being a wash, because both sides have arguments for/against the FWs but don't weigh why those arguments are most important/weigh under their opponent's framework. You should always do the second thing.

I will vote directly on the flow and weighing provided. Drops=conceded argument and weigh heavily in the round. I don’t have any ideological preference for specific arguments and will vote for literally anything as long as it’s extended and well explained. Tech>truth

Be kind. Don't spread. Have fun.

I did LD and PF in high school, but I am almost certainly rusty now. I am fine with speed so long as you're clear, but add me to the email chain if you're going fast (300 wpm is definitely fast for me).

In front of me you're probably best off focusing on the line by line, though I would much appreciate it if you make weighing arguments in later speeches.

Would also like to see more evidence comparison, or at least detailed arguments on warrants. If I hear plausible evidence that says the US heg deters conflict with China and plausible evidence that US heg causes war with China, I will most likely evaluate it as neutral unless someone gives me a justification to prefer one piece of evidence over the other.

Feel free to make any arguments that you can warrant well. I prefer phil or policy debates, but kritiks or theory are fine. I think a lot of theory debates are unwarranted and blippy but if theory is the best way to engage an argument then go for it. For kritiks just make sure the arguments are understandable without having read through the literature, at least for more obscurantist authors like Deleuze. If I don't find an argument well warranted or plausible I will be much less happy to vote on it and will accept weaker answers.

(she/her)

Edina LD 2019-2023

Add me to any email chains with this email: dschmitt@smith.edu.

+0.1 speaks if you send the email chain before round start time.

I have the skills necessary to judge the debate that you would like to have, but not necessarily the topic knowledge since I am currently proximately involved in coaching, so I would recommend taking some extra care to explain ur args bc I'm not up with the meta on the circuit presently.

I will only vote on complete arguments. An argument entails a claim and a warrant – not an assertion. I will not vote on anything that I cannot explain to your opponent after the round.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not. I need to be able to hear the text of your cards – even if you read it quickly, or I will not evaluate that card. I will not read speech docs to fill in gaps on my flow; that would be an inequitable practice. I will call clear THREE times before I give up and put my hands in the air to demonstrate that I am unable to flow because I am unable to understand the words that you’re saying.

Stealing prep is unbecoming. You’re needlessly wasting everyone’s time and making the tournament run later. I will notice, and you will notice too, because it will be reflected in your speaks.

tech > truth. I will vote on almost* anything, but I will have the easiest time evaluating the kind of debates that I was in; most of my knowledge is in policy and K stuff (K lit I know best is Set Col and cap bc that's what I ran in HS).

*I will not vote on any args that actively undermine the safety of the activity or harms community members (ie: anything racist, sexist, transphobic etc).

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

I am a third year varsity debater from Lakeville South, and I am most familiar with the trad style of debate.

First and foremost: please be kind to each other! Debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity, so I will not tolerate any form of bigotry. Your speaks will be negatively impacted.

Overview

I prefer tech>truth and value good argumentation over anything else. Make sure to weigh your impacts and be able to explain them well. Tell me why I should vote on your side of the flow. I will remain tabula rasa throughout, but if something problematic is brought up, I will use my own judgment to determine the round.

Although I'm most familiar with trad debate, feel free to run circuit-y stuff as long as you properly explain it

Speed is fine, but I'm not huge on spreading. If you're speaking at a rate which I cannot understand what you're saying, I will stop flowing.

I'll average speaks at around 28, and they'll be adjusted accordingly.

Off-time roadmaps are appreciated :)

If you have any questions or want to start an email chain: carrstion06@gmail.com

I am a parent judge without prior experience so I consider myself a lay judge

Please speak slowly so I can hear all of the points.

Whichever team can defend and win their argument will win the round

Hi, my name is Leah and I'm a graduated senior from Apple Valley, Minnesota who debated LD for three years. I occasionally coach and judge today.

I will stop flowing when the timer goes off, finish your sentence and wrap it up!

Congress:

I have never judged congress before + have seen one round, not familiar with community norms or the format. I value argumentative quality higher than presentation. I would like to see strong clash and courtesy to your fellow debaters!

WSD:

I will knock once at 1 minute, 7 minutes, 8 minutes, and keep knocking at 8:15. I understand argument norms are different and I'll do my best to adhere to them, but I do have a background in LD that can tell you how I value different arguments. I personally value argumentative quality stronger than presentation, but will still allocate points for speaking ability. I also think clash is really awesome, please respond to your opponents arguments- the easiest way to get higher points. WEIGH- this style of debate will end up with tons of loose ends and tying it all together for me is the best path to the ballot. Yeah, I get you're winning your offense, but you have to explain to me why its important even if your opponent is winning all of their offense.

PF:

I have only judged a PF tournament once, so the thing I am least familiar with is community norms. With arguments, hopefully, anything in my paradigm about LD will tell you how I'll view the round. I'm not sure how important framing is in PF, so if its significant to your case, explain that in your speeches. If winning framing means you win the round, tell me that and tell me why. I've found so far that winning framing does not usually do much for debaters in the round. Weigh your impacts against your opponent and point out when they aren't responding to your arguments. Be clear in the way you speak and be respectful of your opponent.

I will keep time for you, but I expect you to keep track of it once it has been established and be able to cut yourself off once your speech time is over. If you tell me when you're starting/ending your prep time, that is ideal for me. I will cut you off and stop flowing once time is over.

TRADITIONAL/NOVICE LD:

Make sure to let me know when you are starting and ending prep!

I am familiar with a good amount of philosophy run on the local MN circuit and I enjoy clashing framework debates more than util. That said, I will still evaluate fairly in a consequentialist debate. I can keep up with decent speed, but clarity is important. If you are a novice and you are running theory/Ks/T/spikes/etc and your opponent clearly doesn't know how to handle it, I will not vote on it. I think the circuit is a great way to test skills in JV or Varsity but when you're first learning how to debate it's more important to understand the basics first.

I will weigh the flow under the winning framework, but tell me what the most important impacts are and relate your voting issues back to that framework. If winning the framework means you automatically win the round, make sure to lay that out for me. Weigh your impacts well.

JV/VARSITY LD:

circuit voting preference is stock>Phil>T>LARP>Ks>Theory. Don't run tricks please. I have a higher preference for legitimate theory arguments or actual in-round abuse, but mostly, I just would strongly prefer not to evaluate a theory debate for your own good because I'm super unfamiliar with the hundreds of one-line analytic arguments that you need to win a theory debate. Also not really sure how to evaluate any layers outside of topicality coming first, so please lay it out in round if theory or the K comes first before substance. Anything you run circuit you run at your own risk. If there is an email chain, please add me : leah.kay.willingham@gmail.com . I can keep up with speed more than a local circuit round, but anything much faster than that I may not catch all of the arguments you are making. I have some background in basic circuit debate and understand arguments like cap K's, philosophy, T, and other theory. If you are making a theory argument, I am more apt to vote on a legitimate argument than frivolous one. If your case is complex and nontraditional, make extra sure to explain the line of reasoning. Same thing with Queer Ks, Afropess, Setcol, or Fem Ks: I understand the basics of these but do a good job with the line of reasoning and the voting issues. I will probably not buy any argument saying my role as a judge is to do anything other than vote for the better debater. Don't use guilt-tripping as a mechanism to get me to vote for your social K, you will get lower speaks.

Other than all of that, have fun and enjoy the debate! Please be respectful to your opponent and I will automatically drop you + give 0 speaks if you are being racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc. But hopefully, we won't have to deal with that.

Olive Winter

tl;dr - I want a traditional debate on the given topic, slow and coherent speech, and link chains that don't devolve into a 20 step "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie".

Hello, my name is Olive Winter, my pronouns are she/her. I am the 5th-12th grade orchestra director at St. Croix Prep Academy in Stillwater, Minnesota. This is my first season as a judge! I'm excited to be here with you today and hear what you have been working on.

I value clear diction, concise rhetoric, and comprehensible speed. It's vital that you address your opponents major pieces of information. With this being my first season, it is helpful that I can understand your author names/cards as well as your main contentions.

I expect a clean and civil debate that showcases respect and understanding. We're all here to learn, share, and have a positive experience! <3

olivewinter@stcroixprep.org

WE MUST DEBATE

-

About Me

You can call me Daniel (He/Him).

Eagan '23, Georgia Tech '26.

I debated LD for four years at Eagan, competing at a mix of local and circuit tournaments.

Check out paradigms from Mark Kivimaki, Sam Anderson, and Aerin Engelstad if you'd more detail. I agree a lot with what they have to say.

Updated 12/12/2023.

Important

Put me on the email chain - danielwochnick@gmail.com.

Feel free to email me before/after the round with any questions.

I'll disclose a decision if both debaters are okay with it.

I'll listen to pretty much anything (exceptions are no bigotry, no personal attacks), but I won't vote on it if I don't understand it. Arguments also must have cogent warrants and be explained.

Be respectful. (I will drop you and/or tank your speaks if this becomes a problem, especially if your opponent points it out).

I will accommodate whatever you need to be comfortable. You don't have to call me "judge." I have no preference if you stand or sit, wear a mask, debate on paper or read from a computer, have you camera on or off, wear a suit or pajamas, sit in the front or back of the room, etc. as long as I can hear you clearly when you speak

Speaks

Please have fun debating! Be serious when it's appropriate but please don't be serious all the time

You'll get higher speaks if you make smart strategic choices or if you make me laugh

I'll bump your speaks up (at my discretion) if you:

Format your doc nicely (if applicable).

Ask your opponent a question that's not debate related in cross (especially if it's funny).

Email me song recommendations!

LD

I'll vote off the flow. That said it will benefit you to tell me how I should evaluate the round. Don't leave it up to my interpretation.

Spend more time explaining things I'm less likely to understand if they're important to the round.

Speed:

I won't be able to flow top-speed spreading, especially online. If I can't flow it I won't evaluate it. 'Fast' speed for locals is fine. Please be clear.

Argument Preferences (These are just my defaults, I am happy to be convinced otherwise):

1 - Policy - I dislike multiple condo, process counterplans, otherwise policy stuff is great.

2 - K - Not super familiar with K lit so explain it well. They're fun. Topical K Affs are awesome.

3 - Phil - Explain it well, I'm not super familiar with the lit. Real-world examples are the best.

4 - Theory - You better have a good reason for reading it. Fairness is not really an independent voter, unless your opponent broke an actual hard rule. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, no RVIs, but convince me otherwise.

5 - Tricks - Just don't (Unless it's funny, then maybe).

Unranked - Traditional LD - Go for it. Make sure you engage with your opponent to the best of your ability.

PF

I don't have experience judging PF, but you can consider me tech over truth. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. I have a semi-circuity background in LD so I am comfortable with evaluating policy-esque arguments (see my LD paradigm for more detail).

Policy

See my LD paradigm. I've watched a handful of policy rounds and am familiar with the structure of policy arguments, but assume I have no topic knowledge. I won't be able to flow a fast policy round, make your doc look nice.