Coach at Edina 22-24

NDT/CEDA debater at Iowa 23-??, (formerly Minnesota 21-23), HS Policy debater at Edina (2016-21).

he/him

Yes, I want to be on the chain - umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

There's no record of me on the wiki from 2021-23 due to some of the stuff going on last year with fascists on tabroom. That said, if you're interested in reading trans/queer stuff, email me or find me at a tournament and I can send you lit recs, affs I've read in the past, and/or good youtube videos of high quality debates in this corner of the library.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment!

I also usually carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me.

TL;DR - Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Making the activity accessible for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decision and comments in line with this.

I have all the technical debate knowledge necessary to judge the arguments you read. However, I am less familiar with policy-style arguments because I have been a one-off K + K aff debater for around five-six years now, both in high school and college debate.

I judge mostly clash and KvK debates, but I coach teams who read arguments across the debate spectrum and have enough experience to understand the meta and function of policy-style arguments.

General - Preround

Speaks challenge:

• Specific extensions: if you, at some point during a debate, identify a card, extend it by quoting a line from the card that contains a warrant for why the claim the card is making is true, and explain how that warrant interacts with the answer that the other team has made to your argument and why I should prefer your warrant, I will give you +0.2 speaks.
• Final rebuttal overviews: if the first thing out of your mouth in the 2NR or 2AR makes a good-faith attempt to fill in the following sentence template by identifying why you win the debate, **regardless of if you actually win the debate**, I will give you +0.2 speaks. "We win the debate because [X argument] [OUTWEIGHS or TURNS THEIR OFFENSE or whatever else applies]. Their best argument is [Y argument], but even if they win that, we still win because [explanation]."

Speaks anti-challenge:
Current high school debate has a block reliance problem. Obviously the 2AC and 2NC/1NR are speeches that are conducive to reading lots of blocks - that's totally fine! I understand that blocks are useful tools that have strategic applicability!

That said, I can also tell when blocks have no applicability to the debate at hand and are a substitution for reactive and critical thinking. If you are simply reading from a backfile at the expense of reactive and critical thinking, with no contextualization to the debate, particularly in final rebuttals, this saddens me, and will impact your speaks.

Argumentative choices:

I will try my very best to vote on the arguments made on the flow, as all good judges do. Adapt at your own risk, which is to say, probably don't. I'd rather see you do what you do best than see you try to run a K without knowing how.

I'd like to think that the Ks I am most well-read on tend to be material and have real-world applications and conclusions. Examples and counterexamples are helpful in these debates and often carry a lot of weight when done well - I will reward good examples with good speaks! I find that pomo-type lit bases are less intuitive for me to understand, which means that examples and thorough, logical explanations can be more important if that's your jam.

I am increasingly disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a core strategy. This issue is probably too complex to adequately express in a paradigm. One thing that I can convey clearly: I am even more disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a timeskew or throwaway. If you do this in front of me, you will get a 25 and I will initiate a discussion about why that is a tokenizing and harmful practice.

Speed/Clarity:

Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. I flow by ear, and if I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you.

Judge instruction:

Always good. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction, which includes sentences like "all we have to win is X", "we don't have to win that X", "start evaluating the debate with X", "prioritize empirics", etc. It would behoove you to flow and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

Sneaky behavior:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because they believe there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. A non-exhaustive list of what this might look like --

• reading a bunch of offcase that you can't explain in CX for "timeskew"
• procrastinating on giving an order to not reveal your strategic choices for a few extra seconds
• not opensourcing (when there isn't a good reason - think, personal content in a performance)
• lying or changing up disclosure of past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

This does not make for good and high quality debates. Please do what you can to make the community better - in other words, do not do this.

Some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - come across as mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it.

Finally, sneaky behavior does not go unnoticed by judges. It makes it seem like you're unconfident that you will win the debate and need every possible, which lends itself to low speaks.

The speaks boost over the course of a tournament will do much more in helping you clear than whatever tiny advantage you get from the other team being slightly more unprepared.

Evidence ethics:

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

Policy Minnesota Locals (Not national-circuit tournaments):

Speaks Incentives:

I'm so glad you're reading my paradigm! Yay! If you let me know that you've read my paradigm at some point before the debate starts, and remind me to do so, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

If you are from a school who does not currently have a wiki, and you want help setting one up, I will help you set it up after my RFD and give you a 30 for posting cites for the round on it. If your coaches don't want you to do this, I will default to their veto, but in general, I think that disclosure will help improve the quality of and continue to build the well-being of local debate!

Independently, if you are from a school who does currently have a wiki, I will give you +0.5 speaker points for posting cites - you should tell me this after the debate is done, because I will otherwise very likely forget.

Debate Content:

When you extend cards to respond to the other team's cards or analytics, you don't have to remember what the author's name is - "1AC 4" is sufficient to tell me which one it was - but you most certainly do have to... actually extend it, by explaining the arguments that it makes and the warrants. I have noticed a trend where debaters will say things like "they say no solvency, but we do solve - extend all of our solvency cards, moving on". Please don't do this, because I will not grant you work that you didn't do over work that the other team did.

Primarily National Circuit Debaters at Locals:

If you are typically a national circuit debater, but you are using local circuit tournaments as a time to "meme" or mess around, this will make me very sad. I fundamentally believe that strengthening quality of debate on the local circuit can set the conditions for a better national circuit with lots of teams from MN competing at high levels. Please contribute to this if you can by respecting local debate. Happy to chat about my thoughts after rounds or at tournaments, because I think that I had a lack of understanding of this concept when I was debating in HS!

LD:

K - 1

LARP - 1

Phil/Tricks/Theory - pref me at your own risk, I guess?

I led lab at NSD philly last summer. I dabble in coaching national-circuit LD.

Nevertheless, while I'm confident in my ability to adjudicate anything that would appear in a policy debate according to community norms, I fear that my decisions in phil or tricks rounds may not follow convention simply because I have no understanding of what convention for those styles is.

If I'm judging you and that's your jam, go for it, but heavy judge instruction and a bit more explanation than normal will go far in making sure that my decision lines up with your intentions on the flow.

Go read the section on debate's clarity problem. For some reason, this is particularly bad in LD. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I cannot flow them, and thus they will not make it into my decision, which nobody wants.

If you read critical disabilities studies, awesome. I'm here for it. On the other hand, if you read that absurdly offensive Mollow aff... I guess, please reach out for lit recommendations?? Just don't read that aff in front of me or anyone else. If you don't know what this means, it doesn't apply to you.

Finally, when you disclose an aff as "new", that means that every single card in the affirmative has literally never been read by you, teammates, or prepgroupmates before. Things that "new" does not mean:

• this aff has not been read on this topic, but has otherwise been read by me or teammates/prepgroupmates on other topics
• this aff has one new card, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has new tags or new highlighting, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
• this aff has been read by others who have access to the same files like teammates/prepgroupmates (ever), even if I have never read it.

The practice of disclosing "new" gives large schools and people with the privilege of hiring private coaching or joining prep groups an even larger advantage.

Therefore, if I am judging a round where the aff was disclosed as "new" and I am given proof of that it, as well as proof that the aff is not truly new but instead one of the four categories above, I will give the aff team a 25 regardless of who wins the debate.

PF:

Like LD, I have very limited experience judging PF.

Because I come from a policy background, I will evaluate the debate on the flow, so dropped args = true. Like with LD, I have non-existent knowledge about community norms for judging events that aren't policy.

Send your cards.

I will boost speaks for teams who send their evidence to the email chain before giving your speech without the opponent asking.

For teams who do not send their evidence to the email chain before the speech starts, if the opponent points it out and also sends their own cards to the chain before giving their speeches, I will take speaks away from the non-card-sending team and give them to the card-sending team.

Independent from the above, I will not stand for educational dishonesty (blatant misrepresentation of evidence, et cetera). If this becomes an issue in the debate, the team who committed the violation will receive an L and lowest possible speaks - don't test me on this. If it doesn't come up in the debate, but I notice that it has happened on my own, I don't feel comfortable throwing away the flow of the round, but I will still give that team the lowest possible speaks and take any other action that I deem necessary given the context of the round.

Background - I was a policy debater at Rosemount high school for four years, including being a policy debate captain my junior and senior years. While at Rosemount, I debated at both local and national circuit tournaments. I am previously worked as a coach at Farmington High School in (you guessed it) Farmington Minnesota. Presently, I'm in Moorhead at MSUM. I have judged high school tournaments before, mostly policy, but also a tiny bit of LD and like two rounds of PF.

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. ericabaumann27@gmail.com

My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.

I use they/them pronouns.

As far as other "pre-round" questions go: Speed is fine. Tag-team CX is fine (so long as you let your partner answer and ask their own questions.) If you are Maverick, please let me know, and we can come up with the appropriate accommodations for you.

General Philosophy: I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. Just because you say something doesn't instantly make it true.

I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.

I am a fan of debaters being good human beings. I think it should go without saying, but being kind, polite and remembering that we are all people goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were also inexperienced at one point.

In addition, I am telling you now: you need to respect the pronouns of the other people in the round. I will not stand for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, fatphobia or ableism in this space. I do not tolerate arguments that are harmful, disrespectful, malicious or any argument that has a directly adverse effect on your opponents. Period.

I will treat you with respect, and as so, I expect you to treat your opponents, your partner, and your judge (me), with respect.

Also Note:

While I am a policy-maker and they aren't my favorite, I will entertain most Ks. I am good with Cap/Neolib, Security, and the like. High theory K's are more iffy, not because I think they're stupid or invalid, but simply because I have difficulty understanding them. I will listen to them, but you had better do a really really good job of explaining them to me. I never really debated high theory Kritiks, so my knowledge of them is somewhat limited. Do with that information what you will.

Now, if you do run a K, please know what you're talking about. I take issue with debaters who simply read Ks to read Ks and who have zero understanding of the authors intent or ideology. I promise you, I can usually tell. Also, please don't try to guilt me into voting for your K because it is the "right thing to do", I really really don't vibe with that. Another big pet-peeve of mine is Ks that are full of flowery language and complex rhetoric but that do nothing. I believe that, if you do run a K, your alt has to have some kind of actual (tangible?) effect. I do accept mindset shifts (as they can potentially cause an actual change) but they need to have some kind of way to prove to me that said shift will take actually take place.

If you are running any identity-politics arguments, you need to be kind.

I like debaters who give me roadmaps. Please give me a roadmap.

Bonus points if you make me laugh.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask. I am always here to help!

Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

Feel free to run any argument you'd like, as long as you run it well I will evaluate it. I have a strong negative preference to K-affs however, please don't run those.

Hey yall,

Add me to the chain: Kyrabergerud@gmail.com

I did Policy debate at Edina High School for 3 years reading mostly critical arguments on both sides. I love nuanced debates and I'm fine with anything you want to read.

Topicality: I like a good T debate. I will say that I have pretty much no topic knowledge, so you should flesh out violations and the limits of the topic more. I prefer education and exportability impacts rather than things like fairness.

DAs: I like DAs when they tell a nuanced story and debaters get into the gritty analysis of evidence presented. I don't need a counterplan to vote on a DA, but I won't judge-kick it for you.

CPs: fine, just make a clear distinction about why the aff and the CP can't exist in the same world. Affs: I prefer more offensive aff CP strategies like solvency take-outs.

Ks: I enjoy watching good K debates. On the neg, make sure you are fully articulating impacts, and why they matter more than the aff's fw. The link debate is important to me on both sides. If you read a hard right aff the framework and alt-takeout debate is probably a better place to spend your time than the perm.

K affs: Good with me. Neg: I enjoy a good framework debate - don't underestimate offense on case. Affs: explain your methods, explain what the world of the aff looks like, and why it matters.

Happy debating:)

(Side note - My judging record was deleted when I updated my paradigm last time - I've judged about 40 rounds in varsity policy and LD).

Gosh, I needed to update this...

I'm a long-time coach with a lot of policy debate experience. I pay attention to what's going on and try my best to meet you at your level. I've judged every weekend this season.

Include me on the email chain please - charrier@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional approach to debate - policy evaluation, dead bodies, uniqueness, etc. Not ruling out other methods, I'll listen intently, but it might be more of a roll-of-the-dice.

Disclose in a fair and honest manner, adhering to Kant: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”

Noteworthy items:

(1). K vs. K debates leave me confused. K vs. Policy makes more sense, still not your dream K judge. K's of institutions and methods make more sense than K's of in-round whatever. If you are winning a framing issue, tell me why it matters - how does it interact with impacts?

(2) T/Framework. If there is a plan that's even in the ballpark of being topical, don't make T your 2NR strategy. If there is no plan, my ears are much more sensitive to T. But again, not ruling that method out either.

(3). Embedded clash. I'll do my best but I'm going to do the least work for both teams possible. Back in my day, we mocked the lump-and-dump teams without mercy and I still carry that bias. Times change, I'll do my best.

My hope is that you will have enjoyed Debate so much that you will be a lifetime supporter of the activity.

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 11

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

Rounds judged this year (insert any year here): usually between 80-100

***Include me on the email chain (LD, CX)

Background:
I debated for St. Francis High School, in Minnesota, from 1989 to 1993, during which time I debated two years of CX and two years of LD. I also debated four years of CEDA debate, debating for various schools. I have been the Director of Speech and Debate at St. Croix Prep in Stillwater, Minnesota since 2013, and I have coached LD, CX, WSD, PF, BQ and all speech categories. I also teach ninth grade Ancient World Literature at St. Croix Prep.

Overall Philosophy:
I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships of different arguments and/or philosophical ideas. I also believe that competitive debate is an exercise in effective rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos). With all this in mind, I love debates that involve teams that know their position in the debate and are passionate about their arguments. If one team in a debate shows that they care more about their arguments than another team, this definitely can have an impact on how I evaluate the round. I typically evaluate each team’s use of evidence, reasoning, and passion to further their arguments and clash with their opponent’s arguments, hence my previous mention of the role of the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Most importantly: Be consistent, tell a good story, and explain your arguments in the context of what has happened up to that point in the debate. Teams that just read pre-written rebuttal speeches that don't contextualize their arguments don't usually do very well in front of me.

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and impact analysis. 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 am not voting 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, I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. However, 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. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, 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 as often as possible. 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 debate).

Speed:
Short Version: Be clear and intentional on your tags and author names; you can go faster on your evidence, but I should still be able to understand you. I prefer passion and intensity to speed. Most of my debaters are traditional LD debaters, so I'm not a big fan of circuit speed. Will I flow it if you are slowing for tags and authors? Sure. Will I like it, probably not s'much. In this regard, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you just go on-case and dump a bunch of stuff on the flow, I won't do your work for you.

Long Version: Many of today’s debaters (at least circuit debaters) are not doing much that is different than what has been done in the speed category over the last twenty years. However, I do have some preferences in this regard. When you are speaking at 250+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which invariably leads to miscommunications later on in the extension debate. One request that I have to resolve this issue is that debaters speak more articulate and “slower” in their presentation of their signposting, their claims, and their citations. This really shouldn't slow down the overall presentation of the speech by much, but it should make the presentation of those “flow-able” points more intentional. Additionally, I will not shout "clear" or "slower" if you aren't articulating your signposts, tags, and cites. An optimal speed is probably around 200-250 on average for me if you at least slow down for these three areas.

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). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

Preferences:
While I believe, as previously stated, 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. With that in mind, I would 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 as worded in the resolution, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate. I would say that my favorite debates are debates that are actually directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I do enjoy critical affs that are actually topical). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid and supported rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination:

I really enjoy a great cross examination, especially because it allows debaters to really show their skills when it comes to the interactive part of debate. I think that cross examination is a place that really allows the most prepared debaters to shine. Because of this, I usually determine how I am going to assign speaker points based on a debater's performance in cross-ex. So, please don't ask if you can use the rest of CX as prep. That will always be a big "No."

I am okay with tag-team cross-examination in policy debate to a degree, but I hate it when one debater is clearly the puppet and their partner is the puppet master. This becomes obvious if one debater has no clue how to answer questions posed about what they just read in the speech. That being said, I would encourage you to use tag-team cross-ex as an emergency cord, not as something that should be used frequently.

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 (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). 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. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, 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.

Policy Notes:
As has been mentioned previously, I am accepting of most arguments, as long as the debaters are able to explain the rationale behind running such an argument and the impact that the argument has on the debate. I love direct clash, since I believe that this shows a team’s level of preparedness, especially in policy debate, but I also love good critical discussions as well. Overall, I would say that the biggest issue for me is speed. Please, please, please, at the very least, make your signposting, claims, and cites audibly clear and slower than the rest of your speech. I believe this also offers you the opportunity to add emphasis to these points as well, and in so doing show the passion you have for your arguments.

LD Notes:
For me, everything in Lincoln-Douglas debate should come back to the framework debate (value/criteria). However, if a debater decides to run a policy affirmative (or counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks on the negative), then I will decide the debate accordingly. However, just because you have a plan doesn't mean that the framework debate is automatically a Utilitarianism debate. If the opposing side reads a value and criteria and makes the debate about how we are to evaluate arguments (value/criteria), then you need to be ready for this debate, since (as previously stated) this is my predisposition in LD debate. A debater could win all of their contention level arguments and still lose a debate if they cannot prove that their method for evaluating the arguments should be preferred over their opponent's method. I think that some of the best LD debaters are those that can attack criteria with supporting evidence, or they can prove how they can perm their opponent’s criteria. Ultimately, I will vote on the voting issues presented in the debate (or impact calculus if the debate becomes a Util debate), but I will consider the criteria debate first and last when making any decision. That being said, I will entertain "nontraditional" affirmatives and negative positions in a debate (Topicality, Kritiks, Theory, etc), but you need to explain its relevance to the topic and/or arguments that have already been presented in the debate.

How I vote: I want debaters to tell me why I should vote for their position over their opponent's position. If you just barf a bunch of arguments onto the flow and don't explain how I should evaluate them against what your opponents have said, then I probably won't be too keen on buying in to your "story." I'm not a fan of judge intervention, so don't leave me too much room to make my own decision.

NEW STUFF***Kritikal Arguments Continued(CX/LD):

As mentioned before, I enjoy a well-run kritikal argument on either side of a topic; however, with this in mind, I have a few significant points I would like to discuss.

First, I believe that a kritik only holds its value when maintaining all primary parts as a cohesive whole (link, impact, alternative, and alternative solvency). That being said, if you try to extend the front half of a kritik as a non-unique disad, I will be unlikely to vote for it. There is some room for methodology to become a singular issue, especially in KvK debates, but I haven't seen those as often.

Second, I dislike impact turns on kritiks, and these usually come across to me as supercharged links to the kritik. That being said, I would strongly suggest you avoid trying to impact turn a kritik. Link debates and alternative debates are much more persuasive.

Third, a good alternative is a necessary part of the debate, but it can hinge on what you are trying to accomplish in the debate. If you are trying to affect change in the debate space with the hope of spillover, then your alternative should reflect this specifically. If you are trying to play the hypothetical game that the policymaking affirmative is playing, then play that game but be prepared to explain specific steps to the world of the alternative and what that world will look like.

Fourth, I am most familiar with the following Ks: Cap, SetCol, Biopower, Ableism, Death Cult, Anthro, MIC, PIC, IR, Borders. However, if you can explain the kritik to me in more cogent terms, I am willing to entertain other kritiks.

Fifth, if you are running a kritik, try to slow down a little. I don't like to feel like my brain is melting.

Prep Time:Please don't steal prep by taking extra time to assemble the doc, attach the doc, and send the doc. I will run prep until the speech doc is received by me.

ONLINE: To keep these things running smoothly, I won't disclose at the end of the round.

THEORY: DIsclosure theory in LD is a non-starter for me. Be better. I am a small school coach, so I know the argument. I just don't like it. I firmly believe that disclosure norms are net worse for small schools.

STMA '20

UMN '24

(they/she)

2023 CEDA Octofinalist

2X NDT Qualifier

Email: ryandavistx@gmail.com

TLDR: Do whatever you do best, just be nice :)

General:

I did 4 years of LD in high school, now I do policy in college. Run whatever. Write my ballot for me. I care the most about accessibility in the round, so please make sure that you make the round as accessible as possible. I don't think you need a card for everything--good answers don't need them. Answer questions during cx--I'm over "i DoN'T hAvE a cArD for that". Please don't call me judge, it's weird. Don't ask for time to preflow--do it beforehand or do it during prep. Please respect both me and your opponent during the round, if you do anything blatantly disrespectful, I will tank speaks. Add me to the chain, it's at the top. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after the round, or you can email me after the round if you have any questions too :)

Specifics:

Kritiks: I'm familiar with very few K's but I'm totally open to any. Clear links are very important and links of omission shouldn't be the only thing that you are going for. You need to clearly explain the alternative/explicitly kick it. It's very important that you take the time to contextual the K to the round. I'm not a fan of K affs that don't have some relation to the topic/are about the debate space itself, I'm not going to say don't read them but....

DAs: I love them! The way to make sure you win is to do clear impact calc and tell the story of the DA.

CPs: They're fine, they need to be competitive and have a net benefit. No net benefit means that I probably won't vote for it. PICS are fine.

Topicality: I'm not the best person for T debates, but it's hard when there is little discussion about the world of the topic according to each side's interp and good impact calc coming from both sides.

Theory: Please stop reading under views in the 1AC--I don't care, you can read theory in the 1AR--READ MORE CARDS. If you're going to read it, go slower on it and make sure that you do really clear impact calc. I'm very sympathetic if I think there is clear abuse. I also will vote on dropped theory pretty easily (do with that info what you will). I will protect the 2NR when it comes to theory debates because 2ARs are getting away with too many new arguments when going for theory. Despite being a 2A it's hard to convince me of condo, usually, if the neg is running bad blippy args I'll vote on it, but otherwise, it's tough to get me to vote aff. Perf con is probably fine.

Impact Turns: If you're going to do it go for the good ones that actually are worth debating(Heg Bad, Dedev, or Prolif), I don't like spark (you can still read it I guess). Don't double turn yourself

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but you need to be clear and give me time to switch pages. If I can't understand you I'll yell clear, but it's your job to adjust from there. Make sure that you go slower on analytics, perms, theory, or anything where specific wording matters/I can't find it in the speech doc.

Spikes/Tricks: Please just don't. They're so bad for debate and a waste of everyone's time.

Other: If you're on the circuit please be nice to lay debaters and just be nice to people in general. For accessibility reasons, if you can, please send a speech doc. It's even better if it includes analytics and anything with specific wording (perms, theory, etc.), but I get you're pressed for time, so if you can't it's ok, just slow down. I will tank your speaks if you continually misgender someone, are racist, homophobic, etc. Please make the round a safe place. If you feel unsafe in the round, please just let me know however you're most comfortable and I will intervene.

About me:

Hi! My name is Teddy and I am the JV/Varsity coach for Tartan Senior! I've been coaching novice thru varsity in some capacity for the last 3 years, most of which with Farmington. I debated for Farmington for 2 years (Rosemount for 1) and the University of Minnesota for 3 years.

Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com

Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood & Nukes

Topics coached: Water, NATO & Fiscal Redistro

Paradigm:

I think that debate is probably a game that tests policy options designed to resolve problems outlined by the resolution/1AC--the AFF should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the NEG is only to test the AFFs proposal.

I generally default to tech over truth / whoever I think did the better debating (as opposed to policy-making), but can be persuaded to adopt a role of the judge/ballot that prioritizes truth. I think that education can potentially spill over and that discussion rounds are good.

I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K. I am probably not the best judge for theory debates or high theory Ks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters and has an immediate impact.

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me. Send out long analytic blocks if you're going to spread them--otherwise you're relying on my ears alone to flow that (which is not to your benefit). I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).

Judging Paradigm:

Reece Peters (he/him)

Email:

reecepeters1@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated at Eagan High School for four years, three of which being on the Policy Debate team. I've also debated Public Forum and Big Questions. Although not debating there, I'm a college graduate from the University of Washington with a varied range of interests including Philosophy, Mathematics, Computer Science, Linguistics, and Political Science.

I've been a debate coach at Eagan High School for the better part of the last two years and have around three years of formal policy debate judging experience across all range of skill levels.

Tag Team:

Yes, it's fine but be respectful of your partner. Speaks will suffer if you are the only one talking.

Default Philosophy:

I default to the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policy maker.

I will not make arguments for you that aren't on the flow. If you want me to think something, you have to say it in round- "tech over truth."

Argument Preferences:

No specific argument by default will be rejected by me. If you can argue it, I want to hear it.

Topicality- Topicality is certainly a stock issue, but it's up the neg to show why a non-topical aff is bad (even if the violation is blatant or conceded.) This is still true in the context of K affs which don't defend a topical advocacy- however- if a sufficient enough job is done, I do tend to err neg in these rounds.

K- Though I have a modest background in cutting, running, and judging Kritiks, I've never had the greatest relationship with hyper dense or esoteric K-theory (Think Deleuze-esque). If you are going to run these types of arguments, be prepared to give clear and compelling rebuttals which tell the story of the K.

Theory- I have a really hard time voting for a theory position that doesn't take at least a significant portion of the last two speeches (significant determined by the context of the round). In round abuse is key for the most convincing ballots.

Condo- I like condo bad arguments more than most judges, but don't expect reasoning which boils down to "I'm overwhelmed" to secure the win.

Performance- no issue with it!

Presentation Preferences:

Speed is totally fine with me, but I find my ability to flow comes best when it is clear. I love it when tags are slowed down, and analytics especially need a clearer (often slower) explanation compared to card text. Even card text should be slowed down if you want me to note a specific internal warrant.

In general, abide by the rule that if you want me to pay specific attention to something, or vote on something later in the round, you're going to win more if you emphasize it.

In the same vein, I hate purposefully obfuscated arguments for the purposes of confusing the other team. To get a gist of my brightline, removing position names in the doc is fine -- changing position names to be less standard is iffy -- answering clarifying cross-ex questions with purposefully confusing jargon or tautologies, is not (and yes, I notice.) That's all to say- don't read hidden A-spec in front of me.

Quick life hack: looking at me while giving your speech will give you a ton of information about how it's being received (am I thinking, flowing, nodding, confused-looking, typing, time-concerned etc.) This can be utilized to your advantage as I am quite expressive.

Behavior Preferences:

If I were to emphasize any of these categories the most, it would be this one. Please please please make the debate space an inclusive, empathetic, and (dare I say) fun activity for all participants. Belittling, mocking, or name-calling your opposition is not an effective rhetorical tactic, and you'll often find it has the opposite effect on the round results.

Hey! I'm Lizzy (she/her) & I'm about to be your judge!!

Please put me on the email chain: lizzysabel@gmail.com

4 years of high school debate at Eagan High School (MN) & now I'm a coach there. I've been judging for 8ish years now. I'm a University of St. Thomas Alumni (Roll Toms), and I majored in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

My main goal is for you to have fun, get better at debate, & maintain a safe environment for all debaters.

TLDR: do what you're going to do; my job as a judge is not to police your arguments, it's to evaluate the round presented to me.

----- FYI -----

*Clarity over speed. I will be flowing on paper (most likely stolen from you lol) and voting based on what is on my flow. It is a valuable skill to read your judge, and to do that you need to look at them. Go as fast as you want just make sure you're clear and I'm writing down what you say. That being said, I generally prefer a mid speed/slower debate. If you are unclear I will say "clear."

*If you want me to think something, you must say it. I try my best to not intervene on any issue and decide the round entirely based on what the debaters do/say in round. I will not make arguments for you that aren't on the flow.

*Clearly label your arguments. Organize your speeches, label positions, signpost, use short tags, and identify arguments that you are responding to (ex. "off the no link").

*I care most about how the affirmative's proposed action will affect people. Explain to me how your impacts affect the material conditions of people's lives and why your impacts are more important than your opponents' (ex. timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

*I tend to be skeptical of extinction & nuclear war impacts. If you do have those impacts, pls have a good internal link chain. I'm more favorable to impacts like racism, sexism, ableism, poverty, anti-Blackness, homophobia, sexual violence, etc. But, I still enjoy impacts like climate change, resource wars, etc.

*Write my ballot for me. Every judge you have wants an easy decision. In your rebuttal overviews tell me exactly why you are winning this debate (ideally paired with some killer impact analysis).

*My speaker points are generally high (my guess is an average of 28.5). I will reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, good cx questions, technical skills, and being respectful to your opponents. I love a good joke, pun, tasteful use of slang, and/or pop culture references in a debate :) pls make me laugh

*Tag Team CX is chill, just BE RESPECTFUL. If you want to waste your 3 min of free prep by asking a bunch of questions for your partner, go off, I don't care. Don't get it twisted though, I won't let you take your cross ex for prep; if you don't have any questions, your cx time ends. I will time prep & speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too. Don't steal prep, it's annoying and unfair. I fear that I did it all of the time, so I know all of your little tricks haha.

*Unless specified as a requirement by the tournament rules, "new affirmatives bad" is not a good argument.This activity is supposed to help you learn to think on your feet and be strategic, do that. If someone is running a new aff, I will be lenient to the neg on generic links, especially paired with a T violation that proves the link.

*"Tech over Truth." I generally proscribe to this. Line by line is a lost art.

*If you claim in-round abuse, you need proof. I'm literally begging you.

*You need to respond to case (and have CLASH). It's very hard to win as the neg after conceding the entire aff. Cross applications from other flows are chill, but not enough.

----- Specific Argument Breakdown -----

T: Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. My favorite argument as a debater was T, so I generally have a higher threshold for what needs to be said on the flow (for both sides). I generally believe that jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote (why is nobody going for this anymore smh). RVIs are dumb... unless there is (once again) proof of abuse in round. SPEC debates are not interesting to me, but I will listen.

FW: This is just a glorified T debate. Switch-side isn't a great offensive argument, but I will vote on it if I'm forced lol. I think the neg should have a TVA to make their FW viable. I just need teams to tell me what debates look like under their model.

I tend to abide by the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity so long as they are well-substantiated. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I generally default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policymaker.

Theory: I think condo can be good, but can be convinced otherwise if there is in round abuse. I will probably reject the argument and not the team, unless given a good reason to. PIKs/PICs are fine, but I will probably favor a reasonable perm explanation.

Ks: I'm familiar with critical literature. I'm less familiar with high theory than I am with traditional Ks (Neolib/Cap, Security, etc), identity-based Ks, and other structuralism Ks. I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. I'm generally not convinced by a link of omission.

I deeply respect the hustle of a 2/3 card K, but you better flesh it out well enough in the block if it will be in the 2NR. Please tell me what the world of the alt looks like!!! Ks function like vague DAs to me, but with an alt that usually makes no sense. If you don't want to put in the work to articulate an alternative, commit to the bit & run your K like a DA (with some FW on why that should be legit).

DAs: Do whatever you want, just please read all parts of the DA or you will lose this argument (unx, link, intl, impact). Note: impact preferences above in point 4.

CP: Most CPs on this topic are not competitive. Just ~please~ have a net benefit.

Stock Issues: Inherency is a part of the affs burden of proof and definitely a voter. More people should exploit that.

Performance: I'm down for it! Very cool when done well. You need theory to back yourself up. Explain everything very in-depth and clearly articulate why it matters more than the topic, FW, and/or T.

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---add me to the chain.

-Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means.

-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.

-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of the hard cx questions.

-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.

-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything). Chaotic debates are the best debates.

-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.

-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.

-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are logical fallacies that don't win ballots.

Hot takes

Most paradigms are the exact same and don't give any insights into how to debate in front of them. Judges who don't have any controversial debate opinions haven't thought about debate enough. Here's a (non-extensive) list of mine:

-Plan text in a vacuum is true. Judges who simultaneously hate positional competition and PTIAV don't understand competition. Both PTIAV and competition describe how to determine the mandates of the aff. Any counter-interp to PTIAV is equivalent to positional competition and justifies competition off of that. Eg, if you think that a better standard is cross-ex explanations of the plan, then that's logically identical to having an interp that CPs can compete off of cross-ex.

-How "generic" an argument is has no implication for how well it rejoins the 1AC. No clue why people have a moral panic over seeing the NGA CP.

-Soft left affs should be the norm. If deployed right, the security K should deter all extinction affs because it's right that all of the 1ACs impacts are fake. If aff teams were able to debate framing contentions properly and judges didn't hack for extinction outweighs, the aff win percentages would skyrocket. There's a reason that no one takes debate cases seriously irl, and people just need to be able to import that logic into debate.

-If you're allowed to kick parts of CPs, then that means that every CP text is functionally infinite condo as you can kick any individual letter or permutation of letters.

-Textual competition is terrible. If the norm, I think it would collapse debate. The distinction between only being able to permute words vs being able to permute letters seems to be an arbitrary line drawn to make it work in the aff's favor. But, taken to the logical extent, it would be that you could literally permute any combination of letters or punctuation to make any sentence. Especially because the aff gets to choose the plan and jam as many characters in it as possible, this seems like it would be very hard to beat. The best answer I heard was PICs deter, but under a model of textual + functional, the majority of the PICs wouldn't be functionally competitive, but the ones that are could be read either way, so I don't get how this is defense. With that being said, it was around 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs, so it obviously can be defended in a debate.

-Affs need to be immediate. If they don't, then it makes it impossible to ever be neg. The aff team will always get out of DAs by delaying the plan (the answer that's like normal means = immediate is [a] an assertion with no ev backing it up and [b] taken out if the aff chooses to say that it isn't immediate in the plan). That seems like a big-ish issue, but I think that the bigger issue is that it makes any CP unviable. Teams can always say "perm do the CP and the plan in 100 years". That solves every net benefit ever because they're all based on the squo for uniqueness. It's definitely not intrinsic since the perm just specs the timeframe of the aff (similar to how they can go for PDCP against the courts aff by 'speccing' that the aff is the courts). It would destroy all neg ground.

-Most theory interps should be impossible to win. Nearly all of them don't have a clear interp (what is a 'process CP'?), get rid of all CPs (every CP necessarily has to PIC out of something to beat PDCP), or don't exclude anything (no CP 'results in the aff,' proven by competition args). Neg teams that exploit this will have a very easy time beating theory in front of me.

-There are so many things in LD that would eviscerate the best policy teams. If there was a team that ever got good at phil or tricks, most policy people would not know how to respond.

K-Affs

-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.

-Impact turns > counter-interps. Your counter-interp will always be contrived and incoherent when held up at scrutiny. Middle ground strategies are just harder to thread the needle on. It probably also links to your exclusion DA.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what's going better for you in the round.

-Reading T is no different than other forms of engagement vs K affs. It is not "psychic violence".

-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming are all fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.

-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.

-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).

-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-They're good. See "hot takes" section.

-Two types of framing interps that are good:

---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".

---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.

-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:

---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

T

-PTIAV is good. See "hot takes" section.

-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.

-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which, I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

-Tech > truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.

CPs

-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.

-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.

-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.

-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).

-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.

-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg (who is actually batshit btw) is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.

LD Stuff

I've never debated in LD, but I've now coached/judged one LD tournament and was extremely close to the LDers at my school and talked to them about LD specific things. I will be completely lost in phil rounds, but I think that I'll be decently competent in tricks rounds and good in theory rounds. Your best bet is gonna be to go for policy-like stuff though, I'll have the most familiarity with it.

However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.

Prefs shortcut:

1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory

2 -

3 - tricks

4 - k v k

5/s - phil

-This topic is insane for mechanism CPs---I would highly recommend reading them in front of me.

-Idk if this is true, but I heard that LDers don't go for fairness on framework often---I think that's a mistake and that fairness is probably the best impact.

-Nebel T is low key kinda true.

-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args bc I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.

-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.

-RVIs on T are probably bad? I'll be more amenable to them than I am in policy rounds bc ik it's a norm here, but I probably wouldn't recommend going for one.

-Phil---I'm gonna be fully lost. It's probably in your best interest to avoid these debates. I know basic stuff like util and deontology. I'm obviously open to hearing other stuff, but won't know it at all, which means that your burden of explaining what it is is gonna be way higher. I'm pretty biased to util though.

-Debate in front of me like you were debating in front of Sam Anderson or Aerin Engelstad

Experience: I am a fifth-year policy coach for Rosemount High School. I debated for 4 years at Rosemount High School and recently graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in political science (quantitative-focus) and election administration. My main experience in argumentation is in policy-oriented soft-left positions, with a focus on legal theory (court CP's, Court Legitimacy, Test Case FIAT, etc), although I did often run critical arguments such as Neoliberalism, Security, Legalism, and Disability.

Please include me on email chains: sewpersauddebate@gmail.com

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

1. It is an educational activity first and foremost. Everything else (competitive success, winning, etc) is second to education. If you aren't learning, then you aren't succeeding in debate. If you do things that actively harm someone else's education, then you will get bad speaker points.

2. It is a game - in the sense that it should be fair, and you shouldn't exclude others from the discussion. This means debate should be accessible and respectful. Intentionally misgendering your opponent, saying rude comments or anything like that (especially laughing at the other person giving the speech) is not good for a game. That will also hurt your speaker points.

3. It is a competitive reading activity - you should read your opponents' evidence and attack the specific warrants. The other team's evidence is also the best way to find links to any kritiks. Additionally, this means evidence quality matters -- if you misrepresent your warrants and the other team calls you out for it, I will intervene and only judge the warrant as the author originally intended it.

4. Clarity > Speed - I flow on paper, and if you are reading at one speed that is incomprehensible, then you will get low speaker points. I have voted for teams but given them 26 speaker points to them purely because they did not slow down throughout their speech, creating a borderline unflowable speech. Lack of clarity is anti-education.

5. In-depth conversation and argumentation >>>>> five-off or more - I think the tendency to read as many off-case arguments as possible to out-spread the other team is an inherently bad strategy and extremely detrimental to debate. It certainly damages education. I will absolutely accept Condo arguments if the other team is reading more than four-off, especially if you explain how damaging it is to education. This is one of the few areas where I am very oriented towards (my personal) truth over tech. Reading an unreasonable number of off-case arguments is a surefire way to lose a ballot in front of me. Especially if 3 or more of those arguments are separate advocacies, I will (almost) automatically buy abuse arguments.

Affirmatives: As I stated before, I prefer policy plans, but if you have a more critical advantage, I will not be too lost. I prefer soft-left affirmatives over policy affs, but I've run both types. Advantages that tackle discrimination including Sexism, Ableism, or Racism are very responsive to me, as I believe they have the most realistic impacts. I also generally believe the affirmative must be in the resolution. In other words, if you have a critical aff, this is not the best round to run it. I believe the affirmative should stick to the plan text and should defend that plan throughout the round. I do, however, understand the validity of Critical Affirmatives, but if you cannot answer the questions from the negative like "what ground do we get?" or "how is your model of debate accessible?" during cross-examination, you will likely lose, because I view debate as a game that needs to have at least some semblance of fairness and education. In my experience, some K affs end up being a way to scare other teams from engaging with the arguments and ends up shifting the discussion away from education. Basically, if you're able to defend how your model of debate promotes fairness and education, then K affs are fine. But I generally think plan-based affs provide for better models of accessible debate.

All that said, I have recently coached teams that almost exclusively read a non-topical critical affirmative and my stance has softened slightly on that front. I’ll evaluate your K aff, but be prepared to defend your model of debate and why you think it’s good!

Disadvantages: If you run this and want to win with it, there must be a clear link. If you don't do enough specific link work in the 2NR (i.e. show how the plan directly causes your link chain), I probably won't vote for it, unless the aff never answers it in the 2AR. Also, make sure you do impact calculus between the aff and the DA, and prove why your impact is worse. I also love when a team runs a CP with their DA. For politics DAs, I hate most of these because I think the logic behind these DAs is bad and generally relies on flawed assumptions. Politics DAs can be creative, but the bar for this is very high if I'm your judge.

Counterplans: CP's are a versatile position which I am quite familiar with. I believe Counterplans do not have to be topical, but they should still be competitive. Also, if you run a CP, make sure you answer the Perm, and when you do, make sure that you tell me specifically why it doesn't function. Theory can be an independent voter (when it is impacted out), so don't ignore it. Additionally, I think sufficiency framing is usually a pretty lazy argument that is made by teams who don't think their CP solvency is all that good. You need to prove why the CP solves BETTER than the affirmative, not just that it solves "enough" of the aff. Sufficiency framing is generally not enough for me to vote for the CP.

Topicality/FW/Theory: While the position is more valid when there is clear abuse outlined in the argument, there doesn't always have to be abuse. It can be used effectively as link traps or for other strategic reasons. I also love Effects/Extra Topicality arguments, especially if presented well. For the aff, Reasonability is a valid argument, but if you want me to vote on it, tell me why your plan is reasonably topical under the neg's interpretation and the aff's. On theory, disclosure theory is a non-starter. Do not run this, even as a cheap argument. While it won't lose you the round, it will damage your credibility with me and your speaker points. The only exception to this is if the team discloses one aff, and then changes it at the last minute. Then I can see it being warranted. For the most part, I think theory is usually used as a cheap strategy. Don't use it as that. Use it only if it is well-warranted. A-Spec is usually ridiculous and I don’t think I’d find myself voting for it all that often, although if it’s well-warranted, then maybe (the bar for that is extremely high, so please try to avoid this unless absolutely necessary). Perf con against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Condo against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Make sure your theory arguments make sense!

Most of all in theory debates, SLOW DOWN! You are essentially reading paragraphs which are incredibly difficult to flow if you just speed through them. I think spreading through theory is anti-education, and is a surefire way to damage your speaker points. I flow on paper, so my flowing speed is limited and I'm not going to flow theory arguments that I missed - it's your burden to make sure I get them. Additionally, if you don't slow down on theory arguments, you will damage your speaker points. Like I started this paradigm with, debate is an educational activity first. If the way you read theory is anti-educational, I will let you know after the round.

Kritiks: I am not great with all K's, so if you run one, make sure you clearly explain the story (especially the link and alternative) if you expect me to vote for it. However, I have run Disability, Security, Legalism, and Neoliberalism K's as well as Word PIKs, and done some coaching on more identity-based Kritiks, so if you're comfortable with those positions, this would be the round to run it. Basically, if you really want me to follow your Kritik, run Security, Disability, Afropess, Language K's, or Neoliberalism. If you don’t care if I understand your position, run Deleuze, Queer Pessimism or Baudrillard. I have a high bar for voting for Kritiks that I am not familiar with. Do not assume I understand your Kritik, explain it at the thesis level. Just as importantly, explain it within the context of the affirmative! What is the problematic assumption or rhetoric that the aff makes/uses? How does that cause the perpetuation of the bad thing you're Kritiking? How does your alternative resolve the issue? A Kritik that earns my ballot will answer all of these questions.

General: Spreading is fine, but make sure you don't go past what you feel comfortable with and SLOW DOWN ON THE TAGS. If I miss your tag because you didn't pause or slow down when reading it, I am not going to flow it for you. Make it clear, or I won't weigh the argument. When you are speaking, make sure you analyze each argument in full and make a coherent claim. Tags should be complete sentences. The word "Extinction" is not a tag. I will not flow it as an argument if that is your tag. Also, please self-time. It really helps me, and especially it helps you.

Please do not try to throw rounds. I have had a team do that in front of me, and I believe that it legitimizes a bad practice in the debate community, is anti-education, and it will severely impact your speaker points if I realize your intention.

Structuring: I will give you extra speaker points if you NUMBER AND SUBPOINT each of your arguments on the flow for the ease of flowing.

Other Positions/Arguments: There are a few positions that I will NEVER evaluate within any round. These include, but are not limited to:

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good

-Suicide CP/DA and/or Death K (Seriously. The way this is commonly debated brings with it serious mental health concerns and I will tolerate none of that.)

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

Basically, if you think that your position sounds like it advocates for something offensive, don't run it.

Cross-Examination: Make sure you are polite. I am fine with tag-team if both teams agree to it, but if you shout over your partner, I will dock speaker points. Most importantly, remember that CROSS-EX IS A SPEECH. Cross-Ex is a great place to set traps for your opponents, and for you to be able to use what they say in-round against them. I do flow cross-ex, so I know what was said. Don't try to pull one over on me.

To sum it all up in a few points...

1. Education comes first. Debate is an educational activity at its core, and I believe my primary role within the round is that of an educator. If you do things that I deem as harmful to debate education, you will get lower speaker points, and may lose the round.

2. I tend to be a policy-oriented judge, although I am very comfortable with Kritiks. If you want to run one, be sure to fully explain it as if I have never heard of the philosophy before.

3. Cross-Ex is a speech and a great place to form arguments, so use it!

4. Explain everything to the fullest extent, especially links. If there is not enough work done on DA/K/T links, I will not vote for it.

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round starts!

General Considerations:

Kindness rules!

Listen to your opponent and demonstrate you understand their arguments; then present better arguments than theirs. Show a command of the whole topic.

Don't ask me about my meager paradigm unless you are committed to adjusting your debating to accommodate it. If you ask, I expect you to adjust to it. Failure to do so will lower your speaker points.

I can handle some speed; I very much prefer not to.

Congress:

I expect your arguments to pursue an answer to the legislation's purpose. It's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build things up. If you're affirming, explain how there is solvency in affirming. If you're negating, explain what would be needed to solve; don't just list reasons why the legislation won't work. Solvency is everyone's burden because you're legislators. Move society forward.

Extend arguments. Dueling oratories isn't debate. Respond to the responses of other speakers on the issues.

I actually find it compelling when you represent a particular constituency. Applying your arguments to how they impact actual citizens is the point, after all.

Lincoln/Douglas:

I'll listen to circuit argumentation, but if it isn't clear to me, I won't vote for it. That being said, sticking to the topic is much safer with me.

If you are prepping arguments, your prep time clock needs to be running. Don't stall through any tactics to get more.

If you want to start an email chain, do so before the round begins. Be ready by attaching your files to a reply ahead of time and just send at the appropriate moment.

Time yourself. Call out your prep time. You may time your opponent, but for goodness sake, do NOT set an alarm. That's just obnoxious.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

im down with k affs you just better be good at responding to t cause i love t

I've been juding for a few years and i debated a bit before that (started judging in 2018)

Its okay to be nervous. debate especially when you just start debating can be really scary. Its okay take a deep breath. if that doesn't work talk to me we can ways pause the round for a minute or two for mental health.

Clarity comes before speed

Yes you can tag team but don't abuse it. (You can not tag team against a maverick )

Even if both teams are three headed monsters the third person who isnt in that debate CAN NOT help.

If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it

If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.

If you don't make it clear your going onto a new card by saying next it is very possible I'll miss your tag.

Make it clear where you on in the speech by sign posting i will probably flow it on the wrong flow which wont make your argument stronger.

Its totally fine to be assertive but don't be mean if you get mean I'll dock speaker points.

If i see you not flowing all of the speeches i will dock speaker points.

Don't ask me questions in round if it deals with the round wait until the debate is over and im giving my rfd.

Extending isnt re-reading the card its reading the author year then explaining the warrant in your own words

I don't flow cross x. BUT if you say something that goes aginst the side you supposed to be on i will write it down in the notes

Tell me if there is anything you don't want me to comment on like if you have a stutter. I dont wanna be bring that up and possibly just annoying you