Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Simley HS in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota

she/her/hers

Arguments need to be clear and concise. Both your competitor and I need to understand your argument.

If you debate too fast, I will not be able to understand you. Please speak slower especially when providing new elements to your debate. in short, spreading is fine as long as I get it.

I prefer everyone time so we can stay accountable.

Please connect your argument to the value and criteria.

If you are able to provide a solution for both the aff and the neg, I have an easier time voting towards your case.

Be kind to your opponent. Be respectful and use appropriate language.

I tend to disclose at the end. I am always open to elaborating on my thoughts so that students may understand and learn.

I used to debate LD in high school. I tend to have a preference for traditional LD, but if you want to run more progressive arguments you need to really explain how those arguments interact in the round.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I was a Policy Debater in high school over 20years ago. I judged mostly PF in 2021. In 2022 I am also judging LD. I like to think I judge only based on the arguments presented, but I know that presentation skills do influence my decision.

I try to come into each round tabula rasa. The debaters control the information I know and the flow of the round, please be organized in you arguments or I may miss your point. I do not always take notes during cross, so if want to prove a point, bring it up the in speeches.

I think debate is a great activity, I am excited to be apart of it. Have fun, learn something and feel free to teach me something as well.

Thanks,

Matt Cordina

harith.dameh@gmail.com

Hello!

TLDR Trad is preferred, weigh, and here's my speaker point scale

27.5 is average in your category. I adjust from there; anything above a +/- 2 difference is significantly different from the average.

My background: I debated for 3 years in LD for Apple Valley High School. I assistant coached there.

Placed 8th at NSDA senior year. Very trad but have some circuit experience. I'm not good with the jargon so explaining stuff is nice

I basically agree with Nick Smith's paradigm on everything. A couple key points for me in LD:

1. Explain your arguments well. Make sure that you could succinctly explain your case to your grandma if she asked

2. Show how they link under the framework. I get so sad having to discount really well-thought-out arguments because they don't matter under FW and someone points that out, but that's the name of the game, I guess.

3. Please interact your arguments with both the rest of yours and your opponent's. They don't exist in a vacuum; each argument is a piece of the puzzle. Show the connections and you'll be great.

and have fun! ask me questions before the round if you have questions

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

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

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

Danial Zane Davis:

Title & Experience:

Professional Development Specialist, Ewald Consulting, Saint Paul, MN.

Former Assistant Director of Speech & Debate & 7th Grade Logic & Language Arts Teacher, St. Croix Preparatory Academy (PREP), Stillwater, MN.

More than a decade coaching and judging Lincoln-Douglas and Policy (CX) at MN Speech & Debate Tournaments.

In high school in Nebraska, four years of (mostly Congress) debate alongside four years of forensics, especially extemporaneous and informative.

Background:

I'm an educator who has worked with middle school, high school, and adult learners in charter schools, public schools, and the private sector. My undergraduate education focused on literature, linguistics, philosophy, and history, while my Master's work is in education and natural and environmental sciences. Arguments that apply philosophy vaguely or incorrectly, arguments that abuse linguistics to make distinctions without meaningful differences, and arguments based on poorly understood or absent literary, historical, and/or scientific evidence will fall under the lightest scrutiny by your opponent. On the other hand, arguments that demonstrate sound philosophy, employ language meaningfully, and feature accurate or insightful references to literature, history, and/or scientific evidence will help you.

Style and rules:

I will say “clear” if a debater is incomprehensible. If I say "clear" twice, and the debater does not attempt to slow down or enunciate, I will stop flowing the speech. This automatically results in that debater losing the round. I can handle a reasonably fast debate comfortably, but I prefer L-D to be conducted at a conversational pace.

I prefer debates to be amicable intellectual competitions, so I don’t generally appreciate abusive behavior in rounds. However, I don’t mind emotional intensity, provided it subsides when the round concludes. I also welcome reasonable humor where appropriate.

I expect debaters to engage with their opponent’s arguments (read: clash), not merely to read blocks at each other. Thus, I do not appreciate attempts to win by "spreading" as many arguments as possible, hoping to overwhelm one's opponent with quantity instead of quality. This is a habit of poor CX debaters that occasionally rears its ugly head in L-D.

I am a flow judge, and I want to hear actual arguments, not buzzwords or empty tags. Don’t just say “extend my __ card.” Remind me what the card states. Don’t expect that I will fill-in the blank. Making and clarifying arguments is your job, not mine.

LD Judging Paradigm:

In short, I will hear any reasonable argument if you understand what you are reading and run it well across the flow. Make sure you read my "Background" paragraph if you want clarification on what "understand what you are reading" and "run it well" means.

Your value-premise is important. If you and your opponent have different, competing values, don’t automatically declare your values equal or identical and move-on. To weigh two competing value premises, I usually make a comparison between the achievement of similar positions.

The value-criterion is the vital weighing mechanism that allows me to see whether or not your contention-level arguments achieve your value-premise. With this in mind, I don’t like the trend of just running a "Standard" (that has infiltrated L-D from CX). While reasonable in theory, the practice usually leads debaters to have a value-premise without a concrete weighing mechanism--making it difficult to judge whether they achieves their own burden--or a weighing mechanism with no end goal--making even successful arguments lack a higher purpose, which seems contrary to the intellectual, philosophical, or moral duty implied by “ought” or “should” in an L-D resolution.

When determining the winner of a round, I will first judge if each debater has successfully addressed all of their opponent’s key arguments. This is not to say that I will vote against you if you drop an ancillary point in the 2AR. However, if you are deliberately dropping a significant argument, you should clearly explain why you are doing so, and you should ground your reasoning in sound evidence, philosophy, or theory. Further, if you want me to know that an argument is essential, you should highlight it via specific voting issues in the 2NR/AR.

If all arguments relevant to the round have been adequately addressed (or equally inadequately addressed), I will next examine whether each debater has successfully met their own burden. If you connect your framework with your contention-level arguments through explicit warrants and continue to make these connections clear across the flow, you are likely to win against an opponent who does not. If both debaters have done this (or both have equally failed), I will compare worlds to make my decision. I am open to debates concerning the role of the ballot, but if such a debate is absent, I will default to the above process.

If you intend to run a Plan or Counterplan, I expect you to explicitly link it to the Resolution and to ground it in a nuanced Value/Criterion Framework. Plans originated in CX, which places far less emphasis on the Value debate. While I am familiar with CX, it is distinct from L-D and for important reasons I don't need to enumerate here. Suffice to say, if you intend to use any CX-style argument in an L-D round, you must adapt it for the unique requirements of L-D.

I love a well-run K, as a good Kritik is rooted in a strong philosophical framework. Please note the qualifiers, “good,” “well-run,” and “strong philosophical framework.” For any additional clarification, see my "Background" paragraph. K’s can be permuted, but I need clear warrants as to why.

If you run T, it should be because something really isn't resolutional. Topicality is another CX argument that needs to be adapted for reasonable use in L-D.

I prefer that debates focus on the Resolution, but I will try to evaluate theory debates fairly. To be clear, however, my understanding of debate theory is basic, especially compared with TOC judges. (I have neither participated in nor coached TOC style L-D.) If the round comes down to a theory debate, it is the burden of the 2NR and the 2AR to make sure the theory arguments and the implications thereof are absolutely clear.

I don’t like to examine evidence after a round, but I have and I will if I think the in-round analysis of the evidence is inconclusive. I reserve the right to read whatever part(s) of the evidence I think are necessary to determine if it is taken out of context or interpreted badly enough to alter its meaning. I will hear challenges to the validity of evidence, but if a debater challenges the methodology of their opponent, they need to have their own methodology available for examination as well. If this is not the case, I will dismiss such a challenge.

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

Policy (CX) Paradigm:

Evidence:

Evidence is only one part of a debate. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I will not vote on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, don’t misrepresent your evidence or make it sound “bigger” than it really is.

Another area I think is important is the "citation debate." I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. If it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue.

I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. There may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond. I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX).

Speed:

When you are speaking at 300+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which leads to miscommunications later in the extension debate. To resolve this issue, articulate and speak slower in your presentation of signposts, claims, and citations. This shouldn't slow down your overall presentation by much, but it should make those “flow-able” points clearer. Additionally, I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't articulating, and if you continue to speak too fast, I'll just stop flowing. If you see this, you will probably lose the round, so make a conscious effort to accommodate my speed preference for the signposts, tags, and author last names at least. An optimal speed in these areas is around 200-250 wpm.

Persuasion:

As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). The most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture. Additionally, a big picture debate may be able to shore up some of the back-and-forth that takes place in the line-by-line debate, so if a debater doesn't directly respond to the Contention One, Subpoint A, little three, they can still show offense with a big picture/overview analysis of the entire subpoint or contention. However, as previously mentioned, if you drop case entirely, you need to have a really strong (Kritikal) reason for doing so (and even then links should include some direct references to case).

Preferences:

While I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some Topical awareness in a debate. I suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic at hand, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution.

My favorite debates are debates that are directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I love critical, topical Affs). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

The Ballot:

Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me. I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. As far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

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

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2024 MN Sections/State:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who am I:

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

Things I like:

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

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

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

Things I don't like:

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

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

Specific arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misc:

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

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

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

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

3. Be nice.

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

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

For Congress:

For LD:

Major considerations for me as a judge:

1) Value clash seems unnecessary...aren't you all valuing something good? I rarely vote on the value debate.

2) Criterion/standard is VERY important. Please keep in mind: just because we use your framework to weigh the round doesn't mean YOU WIN. I vote for the debater who meets the agreed-upon framework the best. Whosever framework we use, I will use that lens to review the round.

3) Impacts are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and should be stated IN ALL SPEECHES. Otherwise, I am witnessing two debaters throw evidence and arguments at each other, but I don't know what to do with this content. TELL YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECHES! How does what you are saying influence the round?

4) I hate nuclear war/extinction arguments. Like, super hate. The only reason I would vote for you if you use nuclear war impacts is if the resolution is actually about nuclear weapons. Other than that, I will not buy slippery slope arguments. I truly hate extinction arguments...like, truly truly.

5) I don't like debate theory. It seems like an excuse not to debate the actual topic. It avoids thoughtful discourse about the topic at hand. I'll listen to topic-appropriate theory/philosophy, but not debate theory.

6) Speed does not equal winning. Just getting as muchstuff on the flow as possible is not a tactic for a win.

7) Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or ableist arguments will be automatically downvoted. I understand that arguments that contain these ideas might be made by accident. However, you need to work with your team/coaches if I bring this up to you on a ballot. There is no excuse to be denigrating a group of people.

I am mostly experienced in LD, Congressional, and BQ. I prefer to hear your frameworks and contentions. I'm ok with spreading as long as you are articulate and I can hear your sources. Relax, Have Fun, Good luck! Please send me your case at lisa.lewis@mtka.org.

My email is mart4516@umn.edu

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

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

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

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

Congress:

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

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

Does your speech flow?

Is your hook generic?

Do you read off a paper?

Are you robotic?

Are you repeating points already made?

Do you move around the room?

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

TOC BID SPECIFIC:

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

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

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

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

POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

Hello! My name is Calvin McMahon. I am one of the LD debate coaches at Wayzata High School. Before coaching at Wayzata, I debated LD at Champlin Park High School for five years and served as a volunteer instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute for four years. Just writing this paradigm to lay out a few preferences:

• First and foremost, The style of debate and argumentation that is most comfortable to you is probably the style you should use in a round. Twisting yourself into knots to appease a judge is generally a bad idea.

• No need to include me on any email chains!

• Yes I can handle speed/spreading, but in general, the faster you read, the less persuasive I find you. Slower speaking gives me more space to process your arguments emotionally.

• No, I will not tell you to slow down in a round.

• I will not inherently vote against theory, but my burden of proof on those arguments is high, Especially on disclosure theory, which I think should only apply where undeniable issues of equity exist.

• I will not inherently vote against a K but I ask that you as a debater engage in these issues of social justice in good faith as opposed to using them as a cudgel to surprise opponents.

• I will not inherently vote against plans/counter-plans, but I believe that 90% of them could just be normal cases and are needlessly confusing as they are.

• I don't care if you sit or stand.

• If you think you can use your opponent's framework, you probably should.

• Most importantly, always be as kind and courteous to your opponent as possible. Do not laugh at them. Use the correct pronouns. Err on the side of caution when cutting them off in cx.

I'm fine with everything that isn't some weird complicated K. Just debate the resolution with framework and contentions and I'll be able to judge :)

I judge on both value criterions and contention level arguments. I do not like excessive speed, I prefer quality over quantity. I am always looking for good flow and good clash, please remember to address your opponents side of the flow. Do as much work in evidence comparison and weighing as possible.

It shouldn't have to be said, but please be respectful of your peers/opponents time and their message. Shuffling papers, making excessive distracting sounds will result in a lower scored round. Also, if there is any speech that is hate filled or expletive word filled, those will also be scored with the utmost scrutiny.

My email is: robert.nerison2@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a traditional/classic style judge as I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate.

You can speak fast, however I must be able to follow the debate. If I can't understand you, your chances of winning the debate are slim.

I look for a friendly/polite debate. Rudeness will not help your case.

I do not disclose my decision.

Good Luck.

When judging debate, I want to see that all the opponents are following, and respecting the rules outlined by the National Speech and Debate Association.

Things that are important to me:

• I want there to be respect to the opponents, raising your voice, getting an attitude, or rudely cutting someone off are not things that will be beneficial to your case.
• I want the debate to stay on task, asking questions that take away from the topic of this debate, or starting off with answering the question with something off topic will not benefit you in the end.

• Using any type of derogatory language, this can be the other opponent, or about a group in your debate, it is going to be very hard to allow you to win that round.
• Having credible sources, statistics, and passion for your side of the debate will greatly benefit you in my round.
• Speaking at a speed that is easily understood by myself and your opponent.

bjschmitt1@hotmail.com

Formerly a varsity LD coach in Minnesota (over 10 years ago). I believe value debate is and should be distinct from policy debate. It's fine to talk about real-world implications, but more often than not, too much emphasis on solvency misses the point of what we 'ought' to do vs. what a policymaker would need to do.

Debating what we 'ought' to do should allow debaters more freedom to discuss the values behind our decision-making, instead of focusing on the practicality and implementation (that is why we have policy debate).

The function of the criteria is to help weigh the round - if you and your opponent have the same criteria, that doesn't 'wash' it out of the round - it *should* make for a cleaner debate as both sides agree on the weighing mechanism, but then you need to be really clear about how your side wins using that mechanism. If each side has a different criteria, then it is important to tell me why yours is better AND apply it throughout your case.

I appreciate a thoughtful case which is well-founded in research. I do expect the debate to focus on the core resolution; kritiks need to have a strong link.

Moderately fast speed is fine - I can keep up; but if your definition of 'spreading' is to read at an incomprehensible speed, I don't find it contributes to a healthy debate.

I decide based on the arguments on my flow - substance over style.

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

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

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

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

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

Be Clear. If I can't understand you, it doesn't matter what you've said. That's your responsibility as a debater. I will tell you if I can't understand your rate of speaking. The arguments themselves matter more than the quantity of the arguments in the round. If you are unable to explain your arguments, having more on the flow doesn't help.

Be nice. That's everyone's responsibility. We are a communications activity, as well as a community of people who have different experiences and perspectives. It's important that we all be respectful of each other, regardless of whether we agree with each other's arguments.

Sharing cases/e-mail chains: I do not support this trend. I believe it hurts the development of fundamental skills which are detrimental to the activity and hence to the debaters as participants. You will not be penalized you if decide to share information--that's your choice. However, I will not allow extra time in the debate to exchange information. You can either exchange info before the debate starts, use prep time or speech time but I will not allow additional time off the clock to facilitate exchanges.

Time-keeping: It is one of the jobs of the judge to keep track of speech and prep time. Debaters are free to time their own speeches and prep time but know that the judge is the ultimate determiner of how much prep and speech time is used.

I’m a parent judge, so speak with clarity so I can understand and flow. Please run lay stuff. Spreading will NOT be tolerated.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

Currently coach of Minnetonka High School

Hey Y'all I love weighing and extentions and plzzzzzzzzzzz signpost for me.

Ive done circuit for 1 year for LD. Done 2 years of LD, 2 years in other formats, and also 1 year in Congress

LD - Make sure to sign post when speaking. Use weighing mechanics to weigh impacts. Clearly explain framework and why your fw matters. If you don't signpost while doing your rebuttal I will drop it.

• Idk lately why a lot of debaters don't link their case back to their fw.
• Also weighing too duh????
• Signpost plz so I don't get confused lol
• Tech>Truth

If I yell out clear 3 times I will stop flowing

Circuit LD - Plans, Disads, CP, K and Theory only. I will not vote on tricks arguments.

Plans,Disads,CP>Theory>K>Other things

I will vote you down for any Tricks

Congress - Speeches must be clear and concise. The only way you will get a good placement if you actually have clash.

*Little rant: I don't know why nobody in congress have clash. This is a real debate hence you would need some clash. Don't just go up and say your side without talking about the other sides points.

How I vote on congress. Argumentation/Content>Speech points/Quality>Quality of Questions> Following Procedures

Email chain send to trinh120@umn.edu

The value of debate in the real world is in how debate can help us resolve disagreements, seek the truth, or persuade others. The more you debate in a manner that can achieve those ends the higher I will score your debating and the more likely you are to win.

I do not want to see a whole lot of jargon, especially if it ends up excluding your opponents from the debate. You are welcome and encouraged to use the most common debate terms like warrant, impact, and link, but I wouldn't go much further than that. Say what you mean, especially if you are in Public Forum.

I do want to see you make complete arguments, including explicit warrants and detailed impacts. Extend all arguments. In LD, give me a criterion and apply it. In PF, give me a link to some value for each argument.

I strongly dislike off-time roadmaps. If you are saying something you expect me to listen to then it should be included within the time limits. I do want to see clear roadmaps and signposting, but make sure they are within the time limits.

Have an attention getter if you want my full attention.

I do not want to hear anyone ask "As first speaker may I have the first question?" or anything along those lines in crossfire. The rules provide for the first speaker to have the first question so it isn't a matter of politeness to ask, it's either a failure to understand the rules or just a waste of time. You wouldn't ask if the affirmative could have the first speech, so why ask if they get the first question?

I place a premium on civility and respect, which I evaluate based primarily on body language, word choice, and tone.

I am always ready; you never have to ask me, and I would prefer you did not. Even if I am flowing and not looking at you, I am ready to go and you should just start. If I ever am not ready I will ask you to stop and you will not be docked any points--if anything, you would receive a point bonus based on respecting my paradigm.

By the same token, I do not want you to waste time asking if your partner is ready (if they are not you should be using prep time) or if your opponents are ready (if they are not they should be using prep time).

I only disclose if the tournament requests that judges do so or if I need to make comments about behavioral issues.

I don't mind speed but I've never seen spreading help. I like quality over quantity and analysis over cards.

Debate should be an enjoyable activity. I want you to have fun and a part of that is actually debating the resolution. I like a good framework debate, but it is not all-encompassing for me. I am looking to see who can actually defend their side of the resolution with clear stats, experts, etc. I'm looking for strong evidence and clearly cited cards. Please don't just reference the card title, give me a warrant for its use. Impact your contentions back to your framework! That is where framework weighs the most for me.

I very much appreciate signposting and roadmaps throughout the debate, as well as voters or world comparisons in final rebuttals. I don't love super-spreading to try to confuse or mislead your opponent. I'm also not a fan of theory debate or Ks. Debate the resolution - that is what everyone is preparing for each tournament. I think it is border-line abusive to other debaters (especially from non-circuit schools or those without access to national travel). I am looking for a clean debate of the resolution.

Be polite to one another.

A note on Speaker Points: This is a speech activity, so I am looking for good inflection, articulation, eye contact, etc. My speaker points aren't necessarily related to how well you argued the case, but how well you spoke overall.

Background: I started coaching debate in Texas in 2001. I have been coaching LD in Minnesota since 2019.