About Me

Former Congressional Coach at Lakeville Debate Team (2023-2024), Current Assistant Debate Coach at Wisconsin Speech & Debate (2024-)

Current MA/PhD Student in Rhetoric, Politics, & Culture at UW-Madison (2024-)

Experience: 4 years of PF in high school in Minnesota (2012-2016), 4 years of intercollegiate APPE Ethics Bowl (2016-2020). I have a B.S. in communication arts (concentration in political rhetoric) and computer science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've judged PF every year since 2016 and have experience judging Big Questions, Congress, Policy, Public Forum, World Schools, and Ethics Bowl. I've coached Big Questions, British Parliamentary (BP), Congress, Extemp Debate, and World Schools, including State, National, and TOC qualifiers.

Congress Paradigm

I rank based on how well each student utilizes the 3 main canons of rhetoric (ethos, logos, pathos). Ethos is measured by how much you successfully engage in congressional role-playing. Logos is measured by how successfully you structure and present a logic-based argument. Pathos is measured by your overall speaking ability. I prioritize in the following order: argumentation > speaking skills > congressional role-playing.

Please note that strong speaking will never outweigh a poor or incoherent argument. This is a debate category, not speech.

To improve your ranking, I want to see extemporaneous speeches with well-warranted and linked arguments (CWI), regardless if it's a construction, rebuttal, or crystallization speech. Asking well-thought-out questions and responding successfully to questions will improve your rank. Showcasing a well-developed understanding of each bill will improve your rank, even if you don't speak on every bill. I am open to progressive debate, so bend/break the rules IF AND ONLY IF you have a legitimate reason to do so. I want to see clash in round, so don't just repeat what others have argued; instead, give me new information, ideas, whatever. Giving a speech to avoid breaking cycle will also raise your rank even if your speech is less prepped.

POs: Major mistakes WILL cost you. Small mistakes can be forgiven, especially if caught immediately and corrected, but continuous errors will lower your rank. The round relies on you, and judges will catch your precedence mistakes even if the chamber doesn't. I will only provide a high ranking to a successful and accurate PO.

BQ/PF/LD/Policy Paradigm

Speaking: I prefer clean, concise, and persuasive speech. This will affect the speaker points, but my preference will not interfere with who wins each round. I will do my best to keep up with spreading, but I am not as experienced. Any excessively rude remarks will seriously hurt your speaker points score. Be polite.

Argumentation: I will follow any theory or progressive-level argumentation presented to me, but again I am not as experienced with this so be as clear as possible. Be consistent, use warrants as needed, and provide strong links into impacts. I will not intervene on a weak link chain. I will intervene on poor/inaccurate evidence.

Judging: I attempt to come in with an open mind to the best of my ability. My choice depends on everything said during the round and nothing more. The winner of each round will be determined based on the framework provided to me, the best-substantiated framework if there is conflict, any progressive framework if argued, or a broad act utilitarian cost-benefit analysis as default. I will weigh the impacts of each side based on that framework and pick up the side that provides the best world. I advise extending your arguments consistently, engaging directly with your opponent's responses, and explaining why your arguments ultimately outweigh your opponent's.

I am happy to answer any questions or concerns and provide feedback as needed. Feel free to contact me at sarakrabon@gmail.com

My name is Jamie Maiers, and I am a teacher coach at Tartan High School and a PhD student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I have been working with the MNUDL for four years and have been a staff member at MDAW at Augsburg University.

As a judge, I really like an organized debate. I want you to signpost and understand what it is you are actually saying. Spreading is fine, but if I can't understand you (either because you're mumbling OR you don't tell me what you're talking about) we're not going to have a good time. One of your jobs it to persuade me-- feel free to tell me why I should vote for you-- explain your reasonings for why I should give your team the RFD.

Debate is a team sport so treat your partner (and opponents) kindly. Additionally, I expect you to be a good sport.

I am a teacher first, debate coach second. This means I am more than happy to talk to you about ANYTHING you have questions about regarding the round. I leave lots of detailed feedback and am happy to respond to email. It is my goal for all debaters to get better, not just my own students. Feel free to reach out.

jmaiers@isd622.org; maier264@umn.edu

Amund461@umn.edu

Senior U of M, 4th year of policy debate, 4 years of high school debate.

I am not a fan of overviews.

Background:

• Head Coach--Farmington High School (2020-date)

• Co-JV/Varsity coach at Rosemount High School for 6 years (2014-2020)

• Head Coach--Forest Lake, MN (1995-2000)

• Assistant Coach--Mankato East (1993-1995)

• Concordia College (1989-1993) (NDT twice)

• Rosemount High School (1985-1989)

• Staff--Concordia College Debate Institute, Minnesota Debate and Advocacy Workshop (MDAW)

• Committee to develop the Novice Packet in Minnesota

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. Ask me for my email.

Top Shelf:

Generally more tech>truth. I debated in a world where the K was brand new and my partner and I won a lot of rounds on rhetoric K’s. K’s that relate to more traditional political concepts make the most sense for me (Cap, Biopower, Neolib, Abolition, Feminism, IR, etc) in the context of a policy debate round. I was not a philosophy major and I don’t get all excited about the nuances of Baudrillard, or other high theory topics. Lots of big, academic words don’t impress me and honestly, I probably don’t understand them in the same way you do so if you choose to run args like that, know that I probably don’t interpret the distinctions you are making in the same way you do and I don’t really see how or why that arg is relevant to the debate round unless you explain it in real world (ie: the way non debate entrenched people) terms.

To be transparent, I am increasingly concerned that the debate space i being rarified to a degree that is irresponsible academically. All too often I see high school debaters simply parroting the phrasing and thought processes of their coaches about very complex and nuanced philosophical concepts. I teach high school students every day. There is a developmental and congnitive difference between high school and college students. I am not inclined to believe that the debate I see on these topics is created by the debater, but rather by the coach. That is problematic to me.

Other thoughts...

Policy maker at heart--I’d rather think about the consequences of plan than about academic discussion of high theory

If I don’t understand your argument, I don’t want to vote on it. Signposting will probably help you here.

If I can’t understand you (spreading, etc), I can’t vote on it

I won‘t judge kick for you. It was your strategy, not mine.

In this technological world, Disclosure Theory args strike me as a whine unless there is some sort of egregious situation that occurs.

I am a teacher and I look at debate through that lens. Education is the main reason why I do this activity.

I believe that the argument construction provided by Toulmin (claim/data/warrant) is the bedrock upon which competitive debate has been built.

I don't like judge intervention, you should be telling me how to vote in the final two rebuttals.

Online debate: I coached and ran tournaments during COVID. I do know that smart debaters will sacrifice a degree or two of speed in order to improve the clarity. I will tell you if you are not clear. I don’t want folks talking over each other during cross-ex. I will be patient with tech, but also mindful that we have a schedule and it is best to stick to that. If tech issues become extreme, I’ll ask the tab room how they want to proceed. I will probably not have my camera on so get verbal confirmation that I am there and ready to go before you start speaking.

I am also a fan of debaters being good human beings. Being kind, polite and remembering that we are all humans 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 inexperienced at one point, as well. Additionally, I believe people should be consistent, both in terms of their arguments and, in the world of the K, in their advocacy. Post-Rounding me is also not cool. My decision is my decision and that will be your privilege when you are a judge.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask.

Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2024-2025 Notes
St. Paul Central / Minnesota Urban Debate League
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy plus a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates in 2022-2023, and 50+ rounds in 2023-2024. I also serve as the Vice Chair of the Minnesota Urban Debate League Advisory Board.

General notes and TLDR version: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debates are public and that means that everyone is welcome, I will always defend what I do, people should feel safe, and I'll answer whatever questions anyone has afterwards; (5) fundamentally do what you want and I'll follow along; and (6) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.

Argument notes after a couple years judging/coaching policy debate after a dozen years off: Debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I last coached and if anything I am surprised at how little arguments and structure have evolved. I have no problem keeping up with you all and I have an exceptionally good memory. I at least sort of read along with speech docs and that seems to make it so that I filter my fundamental feeling that tech comes before truth through a lens of the quality of your evidence. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face and am fairly chatty.

If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way I have probably changed is that I have a higher voting threshold on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility. If push comes to shove, I would always rather people talk about substance.

2024-2025 Topic Notes: I am a practicing litigator, primarily doing plaintiffs' side complex class action work. I am not an IP lawyer. What this means for you: I understand legal concepts and especially the process of litigation exceptionally well and I will know if you describe it incorrectly (and will probably tell you). This should not affect whether I vote for your incorrect argument, and I know more than anyone that a lot of these concepts are pretty esoteric, but accuracy will certainly get you higher points.

BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I am fine in a heg/DA/CP debate. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.

POINTS: SORRY, I KNOW MY POINTS ARE TOO LOW. Am going to try adjusting up the half point I seem to be behind at circuit tournaments for the rest of the year and see how it goes. I follow instructions from Jake Swede at UDL tournaments. PLEASE don't take this personally - I think you're all great.

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.

I am a lay parent judge who competed in high school speech (extemporaneous speaking) for several years. I had limited experience with LD debate. This is my third year of judging Minnesota policy debate (Novice and JV).

Policy Debate Judging Notes

I am fine with tag teaming in cross-ex as long as you do not dominate your partner's questioning time.

I dislike spreading. If I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Judging Notes

Value/framework debates have a place in LD. You should convince me that your value/criterion is stronger than that of your opponents by providing solid contentions that clearly support your value/criterion.

Respond to your opponent's arguments. Failing to address the opponent's arguments suggests you either agree with the arguments or do not have counterarguments.

General Comments

I expect respectful behavior.

I'd prefer you refer to me as Benjy but Judge is fine, names are hard. he/him benjydebate@gmail.com

include me on the chain and please please please subject it correctly, makes everyone's lives so much better, format should be:

Round; tournament; aff team [AFF] vs neg team [NEG]

ex: R3 Rosebowl Minnesota BH [AFF] vs UMN QL [NEG]

current college debater at UMN -- debated local circuit 3 years in HS

TLDR, I have 2 minutes before round:

yes tag team but it'll hurt your speaks if the person who "shouldn't" be talking during any given cx is stepping in a lot

tech > truth

unlimited condo for carded 1nc args -- more amicable to the impact of the violation for useless analytic only cps and cping out of a straight turn (not to say won't vote on 1 condo bad if debated in affs favor just threshold is higher and I suspect you will struggle in 2AR to articulate why a model that allows 1 whole kickable CP is undebatable)

I'm probably more expressive then I should be -- if I look confused I'm probably confused, if I'm nodding you're probably doing something right

at the end of the day I will evaluate the debate off my flow -- this activity should be a fun place to learn and compete.

CX time includes asking about cards read--marked doc threshold is 3+ marked cards--realistically no amount of skipped cards unless there is something in play that makes flowing/following the speech impossible

prep time ends the moment you are not going to edit your doc further and are ready to click the save button--it's unlikely you should need to type after you've stopped prep--going to the bathroom isn't prep but obv try to do before round

I don't evaluate things outside the round, I think part of the beauty of debate is reading heg good one round and the anarchy K the next.

this includes never even evaluating an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or attacks on the opposing team's character

please ask other thoughts before round, happy to answer, don't care if it's technically answered somewhere in this wall of text below

More elaborate thoughts:

(mostly here for pref sheets and because the paradigm is the only place I get to soapbox about my thoughts on debate and I intend to take advantage of that)

toplevel stuff that doesn't get its own section:

I highly encourage asking questions, it is by far the best way to improve at debate bar nothing, I would rather have someone post-round me then someone visibly check out the second I say who won. Yes feel free to email me after the round but the longer you wait the more my memory will fade. If you do feel like post rounding me please expressly point out the part you disagree with and ask directly about it rather then poke at it with weird passive aggressive indirect questions.

send your analytics!! fundamentally makes debate better for everyone and produces higher quality debates (yes this will help your speaks if that's the incentive you need)

same for open sourcing, at least have 1AC 1NCs up pretty please

bigotry to the point of voting issue comes before T comes before theory comes before substance

please please flow everything after the 1NC, one of my favorite parts of debate is great cx lines of questioning and when I lose a minute 30 of that because you're too busy to even listen for tags I get sad

arg by arg:

K: I am probably a harder sell then most, will absolutely vote on it if you win it on the flow, though I will make no pretensions about not having bias going into the round, general thoughts in no particular order:

on a truth level I strongly believe consequences of the plan should probably be weighed vs K and to think otherwise destroys a lot of the core educational value of debate. That is to say unless you think you are crushing them on the fw page (which you very well might be) I am much more likely to vote for a team that proves link turns case, alt solves everything, K impact outweighs etc.

The aff should bully the alt more, lock them down in cross to what it is, if it happens, how it resolves the links etc. negs are so shifty about the materiality of the alt but only if you let them be--if they stay shifty when directly questioned on it in cx I'm much more likely to allow the 1AR/2AR wax poetic about vague/utopian alts bad and reject them. For the neg when you seem to shift in and out of doing a fiated action depending on what the 2AC went for I will be unhappy. If you say revolution needed, be ready to defend the implications of an attempted revolution regardless of the 2NR attempting to reconstrue it as "imagining a world in which..."

Additionally I find myself quite persuadable to logical aff explanations of how the alt could resolve the links regardless to the plan, for example if we're starting a revolution to overthrow the entire usfg or doing mutual aid I find it hard to believe the make or break is the status of our military policy over Saudi Arabia. Also helped when the aff can pull out thumpers that likely double bind the alt into either already can't happen or if alt can overcome that it can overcome the plan.

On a truth level I think perfcon fundamentally disproves reps links and have yet to hear a compelling argument why that's wrong. (this probably justifies severance perms and maybe justifies reject the arg)

as far as ROB/ROJ args go no the other team didn't drop it because they extended their fw but didn't say the words role of the ballot, k teams that act like this is a killshot get my goat

Impacts on Ks often get forgotten about, both teams need to acknowledge and debate about them more. (strongly believe 95% of impacts on Ks are either terminally nonunique or the alt solves about 1% of them)

EDIT: okay first full year of judging down and probably voted for 75% of the Ks extended to the 2NR, if you are aff please please please be more offensive on the fw page, so many teams just extending near terminal defense to the negs interp without telling me the world of the aff interp or why it should be preferred. Gave quite a few "on a truth level I think you link you lose is a bad model of debate but the aff literally never told me how else to evaluate the debate/why the aff model is good past the 2ac so I am forced to default to a model of debate I think is bad because there just isn't an alternative/isn't a reason your interp is actually good for debate."

T v Policy: Probably type of round I am least confident judging, that means you should probably do more big picture work in terms of explaining what the topic looks like under your interp vs the other (caselists <3333). Be careful to flag what is offense for your interp vs what's just good defense to theirs. impact gets 10x stronger if you can prove in round abuse because of how untopical they are. That being said just losing one core DA you didn't even read probably doesn't outweigh education from researching and debating a broader topic and makes reasonability a decent piece of defense to overcome. This shouldn't need to be said but if you're going for T the 2NR should be 5 mins straight of T. I think the phrase plan text in a vacuum has lost all meaning and people just use it as a buzzword to force the other team to answer it. intent to define is very important and when not told otherwise I default to legal definitions being better. (models stuff below applies here)

T v K aff: will elaborate more on the K aff portion but in an evenly debated round I likely err neg, I think limited topics are probably good and K affs rarely help the topic or stimulate change inside or outside debate. Will vote on both fairness and clash and it baffles me how so many judges really only vote on one impact and expect you to tailor your strategy to them. (But also clash is 1000 times more true and if you think otherwise you are wrong and bad)

CP: the 2nd best part of debate only to fun impact turns. Especially true for huge 1 card counterplan that results in solving case. Probably my 2nd most unpopular opinion is solves better is absolutely a viable reason to vote neg and can be the correct 2NR on a counterplan. My general CP enthusiasm decreases once planks get to around 7+, especially if the plan text is longer then the total sum of highlighted words.. Sufficiency framing is a nothing word that doesn't ever need to be said, I don't see why a judge would ever sway from evaluating a CP that way. probably more friendly to consult, agent etc. cps then most. In that vein states and municipality fiat are probably good, private actor and international fiat are almost certainly bad. (though that really never rises above reject the arg)

judge kick: yes but you need to say the words judge kick at some point before the 2nr for me to do it, (saying squo is always an option counts). Am very amicable to being convinced I shouldn't if the aff says so, honestly on a truth level probably one of the topics I'm most 50/50 on whether it's good or bad.

If you made it this far you probably care about your speaks so give a genuine complement to your opponent on something they did well after the debate and I'll give you a good bump.

K affs: probably not going to be the judge you want for this, regardless I will vote on them, I need to be convinced of three main things:

1. There is no topical version of the aff that could be ran under the current resolution, so you need to prove why a TVA given by the neg is leaps and bounds away from the aff and excludes most of the affs literature base. Just because it uses the usfg isn't enough to inherently make a TVA undebateable.

2. Why a ballot matters: What impacts do you access exclusively through getting the ballot that you don't get if you come in and have the same debate but lose and after the round I say "cool aff I learned something today and I will talk about this with people around me".

3. You wholeheartedly believe in what you're running and that doing so will positively impact the debate space (/world if that's your vibe) not just to get a ballot and dodge clash. I strongly believe K affs lose all value if there isn't a genuine real world thing you are aiming to achieve by reading it.

Toplevel stuff but it really isn't important so it's here:

am most likely to view debate through a similar lens as Miranda Ehrlich, Owen PF, Nolan Johnson, J Parrish, Kacee Wells, Josiah Ferguson and really anyone else who has worked with/debated for the U of M.

probably most unpopular debate opinion is that in round abuse > models debates--I think this is me being jaded about individual debates actually changing subjectivities but to me actually being unable to win this debate because the aff was so barely relevant to the topic or they made the 2AC impossible by reading 12 condo matters so much more then if this single debate justifies _______ as an acceptable practice. This is because to me that's the impact my ballot can resolve. On the other hand I truly do not believe this ballot from this one judge will mean you don't do the same next debate.

judges that don't follow along on doc make no sense, images, relevant lines from cards, perm texts, missed author name because I'm dumb, etc. I am convinced this is the correct way to do it and judges that don't just are trying to flex how strong their flowing is to the point of hubris (that is not to say I will backflow for you, if I miss an arg but see it's in the doc I'm not flowing something I couldn't understand)

on that note will clear three times after that ur donezo, go slower, I give up, I cannot vote on an arg I didn't have flowed til the last rebuttals

no inserting cards except previously read lines by other the other team

Brief note for LD/PF: All of my experience is in policy debate. I am less familiar with the norms of other formats. I believe that I would be considered a larper in LD terms.

Note: I enjoy a joke arg, but you must commit to the bit!!!! Additionally, I am keeping track of some UM Brooks treasure for Skye.

I was a college debater for Concordia Moorhead. I am comfortable judging both policy and critical arguments. Do note that I ran mostly biopower and cap, so I may not be as familiar with other kriticks. During the final rebuttals I want you to write my ballot for me. In other words, tell me the story of the debate round and why I should conclude that you have won. That means impact comparison, framing, and condensing the debate down to its core components.

I don't like it when debaters sacrifice clarity to speak faster. I will stop flowing if I have to call clear an excessive number of times. I also really don't like it when you slow down for the tag and speed up for the card body. To me, that says that your evidence isn't meaningful or significant and I should treat the body of cards as just filler. I will call speed if you're going too fast for me to flow.

I like it when you give a speech off your flow without any blocks.

Specific Notes:

Theory- I expect you to slow down for denser theory blocks. Otherwise, I cannot evaluate arguments I cannot write down. I will vote on theory, but I don't have any dogmatic stances on issues like conditionality or PIC/Ks.

The K- I enjoy k vs policy aff debates. I don't think you need an alt if you have won sufficient offense on their reps or epistemology, but a strong alt makes it easier to vote for you.

K affs- I will vote for K affs, but I expect robust answers to framework.

DAs/counterplan- I am waiting for the day an aff team puts theory voters on a politics DA.

Topicality- I have judged mostly novice this year, so I'm not up to date on the T meta. I want to see more T debate in Minnesota, so I will be happy to see some T.

Overall, good luck and have fun. I want debate to be a fun and educational experience for all participants. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Please include me in the email chain, but I try to avoid reading evidence unless absolutely needed.

email:

johnxkrueger@gmail.com

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his

I am beginning to judge events other than policy, but I have almost zero experience with different forms of debate. Because of this, I will judge LD like 1v1 policy. For my CARD paradigm, jump to the bottom of my paradigm.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

School conflicts: Minnesota, Glenbrook North, Como Park

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

For online debates, please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. Solid audio quality is important, so I recommend using a headset or microphone.

The most important thing in this paradigm:

Please slow down (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

The second most important thing in this paradigm:

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another instead of simply in vacuums.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech---------------x--------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it.

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory----------------------------------------x----- Substance -- condo is the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose". I am a poor judge for reasons to reject the team that relates to personal or out-of-round reasons.

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad. Also, answer the case, please.

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates.

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. If you don't have good decorum, e.g. you are hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist, etc. I will certainly dock your speaks.

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright.

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

I try to give out speaker points that represent how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped), new args and extrapolations in the rebuttals, late-breaking debates, and assuming I know topic acronyms and jargon.

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. clean energy and IP. In the end, I feel that the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves many other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses. This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game. This framing structures how I view "T/FW = violent" and "policy debate is irredeemable" types of arguments. I am usually unconvinced by those args because saying you should read a topical plan doesn't meet the threshold of violence for me, and if policy debate was indeed irredeemable, I wouldn't be in the back of the room judging you.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

CARD paradigm

Background: I was a policy debater in both high school and college. I have coached policy and CARD debate at the University of Minnesota for 4 years.

My role as a judge: CARD is a cool format because it simplifies the most tasking aspect of policy debate, open-ended research, so debaters can focus on improving their argumentation and public speaking skills. My RoJ is that of an educator first and a critic of arguments second. I will also vote for the team that does the best debating.

Specific argument preferences: The aff should defend a topical plan and the neg has the burden of rejoinder (AKA proving that the status quo or competitive alternative is better than passing the plan). The neg can read whatever DAs, CPs, and case answers they want assuming that they come from the library. T is iffy in this format and should only be brought up if the aff doesn't defend a plan or reads a plan very clearly not under the resolution. Theory is often a tough sell in this format, although I am down to vote on disclosure theory and condo.

Judge intervention: I will do my best to not intervene in the debate. Things that cross this line include threats of violence to other debaters, blatant racism, sexism, ableism, etc., reading an aff without a plan text, and reading evidence outside of the library. If any of these things come up, I reserve the right to end the debate and give the offending team a loss.

Opinions on this topic: Critiques of capitalism are by far the best arguments the neg can deploy on this topic.

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - cmcmcdonald58@gmail.com

Use the above email for any email chains during the round.

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 37 years I do judge my fair share of LD, Public Forum and Congressional Debate Rounds.

Items for all formats to consider:

1. Disclosure theory: While I understand why this started out as something good for the community it has unfortunately morphed into an abusive argument and as such I will not consider it in my decision for the round.
2. Evidence sharing: Have a system for sharing evidence setup before the round begins. This will make this more efficient and your judges happier. If you are asked for a piece of evidence you just read and it takes you more than 10 seconds to find the card, you can use your prep time locating it or the argument will become unsupported by evidence.
3. Paraphrasing in Debate: I dislike paraphrasing and even though the rules allow it I find that is has become abused by some debaters. I would ask that teams read actual quotes from evidence and not paraphrase. If you do paraphrase your evidence must comport with current NSDA rules concerning how paraphrasing works in line with MLA standards.

Policy Debate - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been a few years since I judged more than a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's novice and varsity policy teams, so I should be fairly up to date on key arguments on the current on topic.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially when using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of the resolution or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round or isn't debating the resolution we are supposed to be considering at that given tournament. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at cmcmcdonald58@gmail.com

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

Public Forum

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing. Please make note of the NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard '23 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time, unless otherwise stated by the tournament you are attending. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

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.

Hi I'm tom and I go by He/Him pronouns. I am the former head coach for Roosevelt High school and have been debating for 7 years. I am currently a student at Augsburg.

Please add me to the email chain: Tommilmick@gmail.com

I have debated at all levels of debate and am very familiar with all arguments. For most of my time as a debater I was a strictly policy debater. My normal rounds would usual look like either a soft left policy arg on aff and a Cp and Da heavy neg. However in my last year of debate I heavily used Ks on both the aff and neg specifically Dino earth ( If you want to learn more or have any questions you can ask or email me about it i really enjoy it). My Kritik literature is pretty deep so I can vote on a lot of it. I think debate is about having fun and making arguments that you truly care about and are interested in.

I will vote for any form of argument (Except Baurillard Ks) you make but you have to give me clear reasons why and have a good foundation of evidence for it.

How I weigh most debate args:

Tech -o-------- Truth

SF Roosevelt ‘20

UMN ‘24

Do what you want. Avoid being mean.

I am not a fan of debates where debaters do not explain things. I am more susceptible to your argument if I understand the words you’re saying.

I am a tech oriented debater and thus a tech oriented judge.

Speed 7/10. Please tell me how to evaluate debates or I will default to pragmatism and decide myself.

Have fun and debate hard!

moria161@umn.edu

About me:

Hi! My name is Teddy and I am the JV/Varsity coach for Tartan High School & Head Coach for John Glenn Middle School! I've been coaching Policy in some capacity for the last 3.5 years. I've also coached/judged PF, LD, & various speech events. 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, & IPR

Paradigm:

I think that debate is probably a game that tests hypothetical actions designed to resolve problems outlined by the resolution and/or the 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, but can be persuaded to adopt a lens 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.

If you're an LDer reading this paradigm, all of what I said above/below still holds true to the way that I'm going to evaluate your rounds. Theory should be spread through slower or sent out in the documents.

Additional notes:

If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me if it's graphic/describing traumatic situations. Send out long analytic/theory 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).

Hi! I'm Kate and my pronouns are she/her. You can contact me or add me to the email chain at knozal@macalester.edu

Some background info for you:

I debated for Rosemount 2017-2021 and I have coached at Highland Park (St. Paul) since 2021. I am currently studying sociology and data science at Macalester College. I mostly judge on the local Minnesota circuit.

If I'm your judge:

First, I want you to enjoy debating and feel comfortable. If there is a way I can support you please don't hesitate to reach out beforehand or whenever a concern arises. I also really value education and I hope you do too. It will make me happy to see you doing your best to learn for yourself, and with your partner and opponents.

Second, I am looking for you to write the ballot for me in your last rebuttal. I don't want to have to do any work for debaters when writing my rfd so if you provide me with a clear way to evaluate impacts and how to resolve the round you will be in a great spot. With that being said, I vote off my flow but I'm not perfect, so it's your job to tell me where and what you want on my flow (aka signposting and clarity of speech are important). Tbh, I don't enjoy tricks or out spreading your opponent. I think the best rounds are when debaters are making smart and competitive choices but also considering others in the round and how you conduct yourself affects the community.

Other info about me as a judge:

As far as argument-specific questions go please feel free to reach out to me by email and I'll respond as soon as I can. My best advice to you is to read what you want to! Debates are way more fun when debaters care about and write their own arguments. When I was in high school I went for Ks on the aff and neg.

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 have experience judging from lay to circuit, so I'm not averse to any particular style. I've also debated Public Forum and Big Questions - alongside some brief Lincoln-Douglas exposure.

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

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.

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 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. 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. In other words, "tech over truth."

Argument Preferences:

No specific argument by default will be rejected by me (barring exclusive or otherwise harmful positions of course.) 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. Fair warning, 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 a significant portion of the last two speeches unless it's cold conceded (significant determined by the context of the round.) In round abuse is key for the most convincing ballots but not necessary.

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 (350+ wpm), 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 / vote on something later in the round, it's vital that you emphasize it. I understand it's frustrating to hear things like "I didn't have that on my flow" or "that was new in the last speech," so for both of our sakes, make sure you are signposting, sticking to roadmaps, and giving clear overviews.

In the same vein, I hate purposefully obfuscated arguments just to bamboozle the other team. To get a gist of my brightline, removing position names in the doc is about as far as I'd push it. Answering clarifying cross-ex questions with purposefully confusing jargon / tautologies, hidden theory, or purposefully mislabeling positions are surefire ways to tank your speaks.

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 for the most part.

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.

opfloodydebate@gmail.com

ADD FOR COLLEGE: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Non-negotiables

--I will not vote for K-affs. Strike me. If your 1AC lacks a plan I am not the judge for you. If your coach messed up strikes, download a policy aff off the wiki.

--I will not vote on "new sheet" or out-of-round procedurals. I am not here to judge intersquad bickering or broader philosophical questions about debate or life other than the ones posed by the resolution.

--CX is binding.

Biases

--The threshold for a good aff/neg argument is the sufficiency with which it proves a topical implementation of the resolution desireable/undesireable. Arguments others find reprehensible (death good, opop, etc.) are fine by me to the extent they are germane to the topic and rebut the 1AC. However, I am still very bad for backfile check strategies non-germane to the topic. My threshold for what constitutes a "sufficient" answer to wipeout, the cap K, and the consult NATO CP is much lower than many of my peers.

--Evidence quality matters more to me than to many other judges. Well highlighted and clearly read cards that contain warrant depth will win you more debates in front of me more than spreading more analytics. A lot of meh cards almost never equals one really good card, but don't expect a single card to carry you through an entire debate.

--I am not great for the AFF on condo (and non-resolutional procedurals generally). If the neg spends 30+ seconds in the 2NC and 20+ in the 2NR explaining neg flex and why that time spent answering condo solves the AFFs skew arguments I am extremely unlikely to vote on condo.

--I am equally as bad for negative topicality interpretations that lack solid evidentiary support. I am generally favorable to aff claims of "substance crowdout" but am extremely favorable for neg interpretations grounded in a well-researched and academically-popular (in the real academic world) interpretation. "Frankensteined" neg interps are unlikely to win in front of me.

--Impact cards have gotten worse and worse. I am plenty ready for a resurgence of "soft-left" AFFs and DAs with far more coherent explanation of non-extinction harms than "try or die to attain Industry 2.0 to solve meta-extinction from a litany of S-risks." Extinction is not infinite suffering and its probability is vanishingly small (even smaller given smart debating). I am much more likely to vote for non-extinction impacts than my peers. Sadly, many "soft-left" impacts merely suggest that some nebulous "structural violence" gets worse and move on with even less explanation or quantification than most extinction cards.

--Try-or-die before voting on presumption. If the AFF lacks a plan or simply doesn't give a 2AR I can vote on presumption, but at least a smidge of neg offense is required for my vote in any other scenario.

--Theory is almost always reject the arg not the team (exception is condo) and you can ignore it by saying "reject the arg not the team" in front of me. Plenty of theory args answer useful questions about the debate itself (does presumption flip aff with counteprlans, should the NEG be allowed to fiat the states AND the fed, etc.) but are not in and of themselves round winners.

--Counterplan competition might as well be a topicality debate. If you want to win a perm do the counterplan debate do not assume that I will simply turn off the part of my brain that thinks about topicality and address logical concerns about your interp for topical limits. As with topicality (and everything else) evidence quality is extremely important. If the NEG lacks cards that clearly differentiate the CP from the AFF and instead rely on generic should/resolved/etc. definitions I am very favorable to the AFF. However, if the NEG has cards that clearly differentiate the CP and competes off of words unique to the topic then the AFF faces a large uphill battle and should focus their effort on solvency/other perms.

--Textually and functionally competitive seems like a pretty good standard for counterplans.

--Politics and states is a great strategy. Politics ev is bad and the impacts suspicious, but often 1AC ev is even worse so don't discount it as a good strategy in many situations.

--Teams keep reading Ks with a vague 1NC shell and zero cards in the block and I am not sure why. Debate math means I am almost never going to vote for a K. If links are to the plan then the AFF almost always outweighs. If links are not to the plan then certainly the perm solves them. If the NEG turns case they never have any defense so the AFF always wins a try or die claim. I am wholly unconvinced that the immaterial "epistemology" of a hypothetical plan can be evaluated divorced from its equally immaterial and hypothetical consequences. You might as well try and convince me the sky is red. If the alt undeniably solves the Ks impacts then surely the perm solves. Since everyone agrees the AFF and NEG get durable fiat, so the only question for a perm should be severance and if it solves the links. These challenges are easily surmountable but it involves reading AFF specific causal link ev with directly related impacts and a specific targeted alternative that competes with the plan off more than just "the capitalist mirage DA."

Randoms/Peeves

--You really only need 3-4 perms against a counterplan. Perm do both. Perm do the counterplan. A limited intrinsic perm. Your perms will fall into one of these three categories and explaining the same perm 3 separate ways gets old really fast.

--Not answering questions in CX. I get it can sometimes be strategic but it definitely is not strategic as often as people do it. You might win but accept that your speaks will be lower than they likely should be. Be comfortable saying "I don't know" it will affect your speaks substantially less than being belligerent will.

If you want any feedback in addition to the RFD please feel comfortable asking or emailing. Debate is hard and my paradigm curmudgeonly, but I still hope the round I judge will be fun and enjoyable for all who participate.

Debate History:

4 years debating in Wisconsin from 1999-2003.

Coaching @ Washington Technology Magnet School in Saint Paul since 2013.

First off - yes, you can tag team so long as it doesn't turn into a yelling fight.

Generally, I take points off for using too much speech time, not using all your time, being overly aggressive without warrant during CX, saying things that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

In the old days, I would have just called myself TABS (Tabula Rosa, or blank slate.) In general, I'm comfortable voting on most kinds of arguments, although I often find myself deciding many JV and V rounds on framework due to a lack of clash elsewhere in the debate.

My background is in Chemistry and Physics, so I have at best a debate level knowledge of much of the K literature. That being said, I'm very comfortable with the technical aspects of debate, so label your arguments well and explain yourself in your rebuttals and I should have a good idea about what is going on. That said, I'm sensitive to punching down, so if you have a "funny" aff be careful that it is also respectful.

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

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

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

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

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is ssspindler97@gmail.com for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread. That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

I truly hate being addressed as "judge" during rounds. Please call me Katie :)

I have experience debating in both high school and college (Michigan State, go green!) and have coached high schoolers. I have a BA in social policy from MSU and an MBA from UMN. I work for a beverage distributor as a data and operations analyst.

email: kathryn.stoecker@gmail.com

---

I consider myself a blank slate or "tabula rasa" judge meaning that I believe that there are no fixed rules in debate and that the rules should instead be debated in round. By this I mean that if a team says something that the opposing team objects to, it is not my place to make a call on who is on the side of truth or what is fair based on my own logic on what should be or the role of the ballot. I want to hear developed arguments telling me why something needs to be voted on and why I should prefer that interpretation over that of the opposing team.

In conjunction with that belief, I really want to hear in round story telling. Please paint me a picture of your impact scenarios and use impact comparison early and often. I love a powerful global overview at the top of the 2c. While line by line is incredibly important, try not to get so into the weeds that I can’t remember the story of the argument. In a perfect world, your impact calc heavy overviews on the 2r would be what I write on my ballot as the RFD. It’s in your best interest to not make me think too hard about the round and sort through it on my own. Don’t leave it up to chance – tell me why if you were the judge you’d objectively vote for your team. Tell what what I'm voting on and more importantly, why. "Even if you grant them X, we still win because of Y" arguments are very powerful for me.

Please engage with the warrants of the evidence being read in the round. When both teams read evidence that directly contradict each other, I need clear reasons to prefer one piece of evidence over the other. Please do not make me read the cards for myself to figure it out—that’s your job and honestly you don’t want to leave that up to chance either. It’s in your best interest to spoon feed me.

Due to my own debate background, I prefer policy-based arguments and realism frameworks, but as stated above, I will vote for anything if the work is being done. That being said, if you’re going to read something high theory or performative you need to be ready to sell me the framework. You wanna blow up the earth or advocate for extinction? Cool, but the framework needs to be there. Also, for the love of god, please be able to explain your author’s arguments in your own words without ivory tower rhetoric. Reading Deleuze in my spare time so that I can understand your K is not my job.

Unless you give me a developed reason otherwise, I’m reluctant to vote on theory arguments that can’t prove actual abuse. Theory debates are how we decide the rules so I rather not create rules unless there is a clear reason we need that rule. Conversely, I find proven in round abuse arguments to be very compelling. This is the issue for which I’m most likely to deviate from my blank slate philosophy.

Being able to read the speech doc is not an excuse not to flow. Flowing promotes better engagement with the substance of the arguments rather than just aimless coverage. I’m probably not looking at your speech doc myself since I’m old and we didn’t have those when I was a debater, so I need to be able to actually hear and understand you during your speech because I’m actually flowing every argument. I am completely fine with speed as long as clarity is prioritized. I'll shout "clear" or volume" during your speech if I can't hear/understand you well enough to flow without the speech doc in front of me. I also went to a lot of concerts in my youth without ear protection so now my hearing leaves something to be desired. Please be loud and please don’t hunch over your laptop. Hunching over your laptop compresses your diaphragm and makes you way harder to hear with makes you way harder to flow which makes you way harder to vote for.

I'd prefer that you don't tag team in CX unless it's really necessary. If you really need something to be asked then sure go for it, but this should be the exception not the rule. Tag team CX should not be plan A.

And this really doesn't need to be said but for real don't be a jerk. Debate's just a fun game we play. Don't take it too seriously.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

I wanna make it so clear i go off what's on the flow if it's not on my flow i don't know it. so make sure to explain things well.

im down with k affs

I like T and Ks but i will vote for anything

I've been judging 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 a card 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 against 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. You can just say things like hey dont bring up if i get stuck on words alot. you dont need to tell me why.