I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

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.

Update for Sept-Oct 2022 Topic:

This is my first time judging outside of being a debater since I've graduated, so I am very unfamiliar with the topic. Importantly, I also am judging this topic for the first time at Rosemount so be very clear when introducing the topic and your arguments.

I did LD at Minnetonka for 3 years (now I'm at the UMN) and am experienced in both traditional and nat circuit debate. I don't really enjoy more technical (nat-circuit-y) debate, but I have advanced at tournaments like Glenbrooks and Minneapple so I still do have an advanced knowledge of the techs.

The inherent values of the debate are about thinking critically and using logic to frame your arguments. If the debate suddenly devolves into a theory or K debate, make sure you actually show me how this mindset change will have solvency and apply empirically to the resolution.

I LOVE framework clash, but I also dislike useless framework debates. Framework debate can be used strategically. If you think you can just collapse frameworks and save time that way, I would advise you to do so.

I will be flowing the round but ultimately would like to make my decision without having to look at my flows. Be sure to crystallize the round and clarify your voter issues. 

Be sure to sign post.

P.S. if you manage to include any Taylor Swift references into your speeches, I'll up your speaker points <3

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

1. I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
2. Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
3. Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
4. @ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

1. tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
2. However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
3. The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
4. Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
5. I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
6. I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

1. Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
2. Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
3. Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
4. This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
5. If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

1. I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
2. Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
3. Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

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

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of six in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

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

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.

Judge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.

I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have been mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.

I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.

Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.

Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.

Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.

Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.

Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.

Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.

My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.

Background:

- I'm a parent judge (judge both PF and LD)

- I'm knowledgable about economics and international relations

Argument Preferences:

Keep it within the topic, don't try to skirt the main debate either. Explain philosophy thoroughly if you're going to do it

Use speed at your own risk--it's probably not a good idea.

Do weighing somewhere, arguments that intuitively are more probable are going to be considered more probable by me.

In terms of jargon, keep it to a minimum.

Greetings,

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

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

Speech Paradigm:

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

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

LD Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

A note about debating on education related topics:

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

Policy Paradigm:

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

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

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

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 a parent judge who started traditional LD judging in 2022. I regard debate as a means of education.

Debate etiquette and good manners come first before winning rounds: dress properly, stand up while speak, and respect your opponents and judge(s).

As a debater, you should have done decent research using reputable sources to construct and defend your own case. Please do not count on spreading to win your round. It is better to speak clearly and concisely with solid evidence. Let us hear quality contention and clash.

Have a growth mindset on your learning journey. Strive to be a culturally competent debater: expand your understanding of different cultural practices and worldviews.

Be genuine and authentic, and enjoy debate!

Hello, I am a fourth year parent judge with lots of experience on the MN local circuit. Here are the main things I care about. Outside of these, feel free to use your creativity and discretion to sway me towards your arguments.

**IF YOU RUN NUCLEAR WAR ON STUDENT LOAN DEBT I’M NOT VOTING FOR YOU**

• Mind your speed - this is not a speed reading competition. It is hard to keep up with your ideas if all my focus is spent trying to keep up with the words. Moreover, if I don’t understand what you say, it’s hard to give you points!
• Truth over tech. I value well though-out analytics equally as much as empirics.
• Keep it respectful during round. Disrespecting the other team or mean behavior will not be tolerated.
• I take notes throughout the round, including cross. So don’t worry if I’m scribbling away when you are speaking. I’m listening.
• Regardless of the validity or logic of an argument/contention (or lack thereof), I will buy it if the other side does not challenge it.
• I do not buy any theories, Ks, or any sort of technical tricks used in round. I expect you to debate the resolution.

Finally, while impact is obviously important, I am almost never swayed by the prospect of all of us dying in 2030 because of global warming, nor do I expect us all to die of nuclear strike at the drop of a hat. Nuanced arguments are more valuable as they are more real-world.

Good luck, and feel free to ask me for feedback at the end of the round if you want it :)

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

Background:

I debated for 3 years (2013-2016) in LD at Rosemount High School in MN.

Overview:

I'm fine with both circuit and traditional styles, and I don't have any specific preference towards either.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, but I'll also say clear as needed. The only thing I really need debaters to slow down for is tags, author names, theory interpretations, CP/Alt texts, and other things where the exact wording matters to the argument.

Policy Arguments:

I'm very happy to hear policy arguments and positions, especially with lots of weighing. I am less likely to buy really questionable impact scenarios that aren't evidenced well, however, and the threshold for answering such scenarios will be pretty low for me. On resolutions that don't specify a unique actor, I'm likely going to be more receptive to theory or T regarding really narrow or specific plans.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with Kritiks, and I ran them often when I debated. That being said, if your K does something that isn't really concrete or specific, you'll need to explain how to conceptualize it in a way relevant to the round. My threshold for answering vague or "do nothing" alts is pretty low, and Ks definitely aren't a free pass to ignore your opponent's impacts, especially if your opponent links in.

Theory:

I prefer to hear substance, but I'll still hear Theory arguments. I default to reasonability, dropping the argument, and no RVIs. I evaluate T before theory, and I'm extremely unlikely to ever give an RVI on T. Unless specified otherwise, counterplans and Ks are dispositional to me, but I really don't have much of a problem with conditionality. That being said, running multiple contradicting conditional positions in front of me does put you at risk. I don't appreciate shifting advocacies later in the round to make your problems go away.

Disclosure:

I disclose unless if the tournament specifically forbids me from it. I only disclose speaks if both debaters want me too. I'm still trying to find the best balance for my speaker point assignment, but in general, right now 27.5 is my idea of average.

Other:

• I presume NEG by default.
• I really don't like skep for the purpose of presumption. My threshold to answering such arguments will be very low.
• If you run blippy arguments or spikes, you better slow down a ton for them. I will also accept equally shallow argument to respond to spikes, so be careful about running them for the time advantage.
• I would much prefer if you debated the topic. I'll listen to other stuff, but I won't be a big fan of it.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me.

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 :)

Start with the basics -

Stand up!

Look at your judge, not your opponent!

Treat your opponent with respect!

PF: Impacts and weighing!!! Obviously this is pretty standard, if you want to win you need good impacts and you need to weigh them against your opponents. I really appreciate explanation and context, one card which claims to save (insert whatever number) lives is generally not as effective as explaining how the resolution leads to those live being lost (supported with evidence of course). I do my best to only judge based upon what debaters say in round, please identify voter issues and weigh them in speech, don't make me disentangle those at the end.

LD: I first assess the value debate, then I assess which criterion best upholds the winning value. From there I look at which impacts/voter issues apply to the winning criterion and weigh their merit under that criterion. I do my best to base considerations only on what is said by the debaters in round, so make sure that you weigh impacts in your speeches.

Framework - I love the framework debate. In LD framework debate is incredibly important. Direct clash on the criterion or value is best, but even if the framework has been collapsed or agreed to, I need to hear how you are linking into it and outweighing in every speech.

Values: my pet peeve -Why would you include a value in your case if you never say anything about it past constructive? There is plenty of debate to be done on the value level, but it just never seems to happen. If you include a value and it is different from your opponents, argue about it, or concede to theirs and link in, whatever you do don't just forget about it entirely for the rest of the round.

Other Stuff:

Speed - I have never heard a debater on the Minnesota circuit who spoke too fast for me to process. I have heard many debaters who spoke so fast they could no longer enunciate clearly, don't be like them. I will not yell clear or anything like that, if I really can't keep up I will drop my pen.

Progressive stuff - K's, Theory, etc. - I don't know any of this jargon and I generally steer clear of progressive debate. I am happy to vote on anything so long as it makes sense and relates to the debate. If you truly believe in the validity of your K, give it a shot, but make sure to explain it fully and clearly.

Off-time roadmaps: Why? Please don't, just signpost as you speak.

Todd.mensink@gmail.com

I view myself as a traditional but flexible LD judge. When making a decision I try to keep an open mind, and only consider the arguments that have been presented in the round as they were presented. I don’t believe in filling in the blanks for the debaters. I will entertain any argument as long as it is well explained. Speed is not a problem.

I do believe that the resolution is important, and should be interpreted precisely and with reasonable assumptions about drafters intent. Unless you tell me to do otherwise, In making a decision, I start with the resolution, then move to the value, then the criterion, then the contentions. In most rounds that I hear, the value is basically ignored, but I am happy to listen to debate on the value. In my view, Morality and justice as they are typically presented are not values, at least not ones worth debating. They are broad conceptions that have no meaning unless informed by actual values upon which there can be clash (freedom, responsibility, equality, human life, etc.). Every villain thinks s/he is moral and just, and is when viewed through the values that inform them. The question is, are the values that inform one persons conception of morality more or less valid than those that inform another person’s.

So, when deciding a round, unless you explicitly request that I decide the round in a different way, and either get your opponent to agree or out-debate your opponent on why your judging criteria should be used, I will use what is said in the round to determine: first, what should be valued (generally based on how it links directly into the resolution), second, what criterion should be used to determine if the value is upheld, and finally, which debater best upholds the criterion.

usc '26 (NDT/CEDA Policy)

edina '23 (HS Policy)

he/him

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

-----

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

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

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

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

tech>truth

General Stuff

Overview

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

DA/CP

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

Ks

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

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

T/Theory

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

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

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

LD

1 - Policy

1 - Ks

2 - Trad

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

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

Hi. I am a parent judge. My background is in finance and global business. I look forward seeing you in action today. Make your overarching arguments very clear and concise, then support them with logic, facts and conviction.

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

Novice judge, mainly LD; I am a senior college student at the University of Minnesota. I currently major in English and psychology, and I use any pronouns.

I prefer no spreading in rounds; please use all your time to deliver your speech with clarity and for me to have an easier time taking notes. I have a quiet voice so I will mainly use hand gestures to indicate time or draw attention, and I don't mind whether you stand or sit.

At the end of each round, I don't disclose, but feel free to ask me for feedback. Thank you, let's have some great debates!

Refer to me as “judge” and/or with gender-neutral pronouns please.

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

About Me:

I’m Cierra (she/they), an honors pre-law student at the University of Minnesota. I was a varsity Lincoln-Douglas debater and captain for Rosemount High School, MN (Class of '22). I had debated for four years with experience in both traditional and circuit debate.

Overview:

Any exclusionary or discriminatory rhetoric will not be tolerated. I CAN and WILL shut down the round.

General Preferences:

SIGNPOST!!!

NO POST ROUNDING OR I'LL DOCK SPEAKS.

Trigger Warnings — Use them. It's so easy and avoids unnecessary conflict and trauma.

Speed — I’m fine with speed as long as it is equally accessible for your opponent. Don’t use it as a strategy to overwhelm competition, that destroys education and fairness.

Cross Ex (CX) — Be kind and ask questions that allow for answers. CX isn’t for grandstanding. Refer to your opponent by their position (i.e. Aff or Neg), not assumption of pronouns or name. Let’s make this educational not confrontational.

Tech>Truth — Debate isn’t for me to assert my personal bias or opinions; therefore, I vote off of the flow. Clearly extend arguments with explanations (i.e. perms, turns, etc). If you don’t explicitly state this, I have no reason to alter the flow in your favor. I will consider the point dropped. Again, I want to minimize my participation to a spectator rather than a debater when I’m judging.

Framework (FWs) — Extremely important for Lincoln-Douglas debate. The winning FW is how I’m viewing the round. Make sure your extensions and weighing are explicit and explained in terms of applicability and metrics.

Counterplans (CPs) — It’s your debate! I’m willing to hear out a good (emphasis on actually “good”) CPs!

Kritiks (Ks) — Same as a CP. Hell yeah! Always a fun time.

Disads (DAs) — Same as Ks and CPs. The basics of debate in my opinion, whether explicitly stated in a case or not.

Theory — Calling out in-round abuse is totally valid and I’m willing to vote down the debater in extreme cases, but the argument more often. If it’s disclosure theory however, you’ll have to argue pretty hard for it. I find it extremely dumb in most cases.

Topicality — Better have a good argument. I’m a strong believer in fiat as long as it isn’t abusive.

Tricks — Don’t. I’ll legitimately dock speaks.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Take deep breaths and drink some water. You got this.

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.

Listening is key for me--more specifically active listening as you move through the question it is important to me that you engage you opponent. Policy arguments are critical and deportment equally so- but the most important that I am looking of is engagement and listening. Be kind--be courteous - be affirmative -- be brilliant!!

"Striving for impartiality and the fair assessment of arguments, I, as a public forum debate judge, am committed to upholding the principles of equity and civility. My role is to ensure a balanced exchange of ideas, promoting clarity and effective communication. I will evaluate not only the substance of arguments but also the respect and courtesy with which they are presented. In this forum, all participants will be given a voice, and my duty is to encourage an environment where diverse perspectives are heard and considered. Fairness, open-mindedness, and a commitment to the art of persuasion will guide my role as a judge, recognizing that debate is not merely a competition but a platform for the respectful exchange of ideas."

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

Hi, I use she/they pronouns

Experience: I debated LD all throughout high-school, I mainly did traditional but I dabbled (and I say that generously) in circuit before. I also have a general idea of other debate events (policy, PF, Congress). I have been coaching speech and debate for three years.

LD

Speed: It’s fine, if you’re going to spread I’d like to be on the email chain.

Disclosure of round result: Yes, so long as it's okay with all participants, but I won't disclose speaker points.

Framework: If you're doing an extremely complex, esoteric framework, I expect that you can explain it well. If you don't know the arguments you shouldn't be running them. Please be sure to slow down on tags. Please impact clearly. Even if framework gets conceded at the beginning of the round I still want to see how it interacts in the debate. I will never evaluate a framework that validates oppression, discrimination, death etc.

Ks: Make sure your RoB is clear and actually feasible. I am not a fan of K affs. Please try to run something topical. I am not well-versed in K literature.

Theory: I like tech over truth. If there is a legitimate abuse in the debate space then go for theory and I will 100% vote on it. Please don't just run 3 theory shells for time sucks. Slow down a little on RVIs please. In saying that, please don't make me do too much judge intervention.

CPs/Plans: Make sure it's topical, make sure it's competitive. I'm fine with conditional CPs. Slow down on the plan text please and be sure its well-explained.

DAs/Advs: Make sure it's topical. If you want to run it as a normal contention I do not care.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author. If you don’t read credentials that is fine.

PF

Speed: I’ll tolerate it to an extent. No spreading. I don’t judge on presentation but I think PF is meant to be accessible to the public and spreading doesn’t really promote that.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author, though I prefer to have credentials too. I only really call cards if it is contested in-round/it is absolutely integral to my decision. I will give 3 minutes (with the exception of uncontrollable circumstances such as bad wifi or a paywall) to procure called evidence before I start docking speaks. If it takes more than 10 minutes (again aside from uncontrollable circumstances) I will drop the card and any other cards from that author.

Standards: I expect clear, concrete arguments for why I should prefer your standard. Link all arguments to your standard and tell me why it matters. I want all voters to be cleanly extended through to the final focus.

Theory/CP/Kritiks: I don't like them at all in PF. If your opponent makes an argument about it being abusive, I’ll likely vote on it. If you’re running them I expect your arguments to be well-explained and cleanly extended.

Cross: Be respectful. I flow it and consider it binding. However, I will only evaluate what is said in cross on the ballot if it is brought up in a speech.

Arguments: You can go for just about anything though I really really would prefer it to be topical. For me to vote an argument I want the uniqueness, impact and link to be extended. I won’t vote on any argument without a warrant.

General

If you do anything to intentionally disrespect someone I will automatically drop you. Let's keep debate a safe space for everyone.

Trigger warnings! If you don’t provide a trigger warning for a topic that needs one I will dock speaks or drop the argument depending on how severe the content is.

gatlingdoescollege@gmail.com for any email chains