I'm a new judge, so talking slower is going to be helpful for me. Signpost well, or give me a roadmap - please be aware that I'm pretty concious about time. 

Death good, sexist/ableist/racist, etc. arguments won't work well with me. 

I'll be happiest if you establish the criteria upon which you win or lose, instead of making me be objective. 

I would like to be included on email chains: koncara@augsburg.edu

I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.

I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative. For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts a larger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.

This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.

I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.

Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.

My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know.

I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.

Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
30=Perfect speech
27.5=Average
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior

If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at kicktosscatch@gmail.com

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)

• Rosemount High School (1985-1989) (NDT twice)

• 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. rbaumann@isd192.org NOTE THE CHANGE in email.

(If you care about previous judging records, look me up using the rmesj.baumann@gmail.com address)

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 get, or care, about the distinctions you are making and I don’t really see how or why that arg is relevant to the debate round.

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.

Racism/Sexism/Discrimination are non starters for me. It will be reflected in your speaker points.

Misgendering folks also is a non starter.

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 have coached and run tournaments this fall on line. I have also taught online both this past spring and this fall. However, I have not judged a lot this fall because of tabbing tournaments so I am not “expert” but I understand enough to not be intimidated by it. 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.

Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

Kate Baxter-Kauf (Kate or Katie is fine, previous last name Kauf, she/her pronouns)
2022-2023 Notes
Unaffiliated, but conflicted against St. Paul Central

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy). 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). I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the UDL 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.

General notes: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) speech doc email is katebaxterkauf@gmail.com (4) don't steal prep; (5) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you; (6) I am almost certainly too earnest for this particular political moment, but that's not your problem.

Argument notes: Look, 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 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.

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 first time judging policy debate.

Policy Debate Judging Notes

I am generally comfortable with the arguments in the novice case limits. I am fine with tag teaming in cross-ex as long as you do not dominate your partner's questioning time. 

I am generally fine with spreading, but within reason. Be coherent while spreading, and I will have no issue with your speed.

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

Any hate speech will result in an automatic drop and a loss in speaker points. You will also be reported to Tabroom. I expect respectful behavior.

she/her

bestgbsnovicedebater@gmail.com

Who

I did policy debate at GBS for 4 years where I qualified to the TOC once and then at UMN for 2 years where I qualified to the NDT twice. I have been both a 2n and 2a in both high school and college

Varsity/JV Coach at Washburn, MN 2021-present

My Thingys

Some people get too caught up in every argument that you lose the goal of how to win. Don't give a speech where you just extend your stuff and respond because they said things but instead recognize your paths to the ballot and theirs.

I think judges should vote for the team that was more convincing. There are 2 elements here truth and tech. I think tech is more important but truth can make tech easier. Like warming good is winnable but the truth advantage warming bad has makes it easier for them to win. Ethos in my view is apart of tech but even if you view it as different it still is apart of convincing although not necessary as many teams who are bad at ethos can still win. 

It is your job to implicate the opponents evidence. Iv never liked losing to an ev incite the other team didn't say so I am not going to do that UNLESS there is a squabble over it.

Ks (both sides)

I am starting with this as I think it reveals a lot about one's view over debate compared to any other area.

I view debate as a game which can have meaning put into it to do whatever the K says. This then begs the question of fairness as an impact which I logically don't get why it wouldn't be one. The claim typically is fairness is good for fairness sake but that applies to everything UNLESS you provide a moral model for the judge to use. So instead I typically find it more convincing when K teams don't say it is not an impact and instead say that viewing fairness as a good is a moral wrong (which is what the DAs are). So just do impact calc between the DAs and fairness I.E. fairness has no intrinsic good and only extrinsic goods which are less desirable (probably don't say that because not everyone knows but it functionally means intrinsic goods are those that promote one's living compared to extrinsic rewards which are like accolades that fairness allows. This then makes it easy to say intrinsic rewards where we enable and make our own success is better than relying on competition for the few extrinsically hedonistic goals).

I also often find myself in awe with policy 2acs/1ncs which typically drop entire portions of the K but somehow gets away with it. I think K teams need to take more advantage of this and also more strongly contest classic bad policy arguments. Like almost all TVAs are untopical (this is different if it is a good one as those are round winning) or have popular interps that make it untopical (like almost ever topic has a T interp to make ever aff untopical), conflicting world views being tossed around (especially in IR where teams read liberalism good on the K and a realism based aff), shifts away from major points of cases and more.

I think in most cases evenly debated the policy team will win (probably 60-40 or 55-45) which I do think is showcased by the results. Typically K teams need to win a lot of their world view for almost 60% of their arguments being useful where policy teams can just stick either to T/framework or their case and framework and win on either a bunch of cuts or a single big one. This is not to say you can go all in on just ontology or whatever in the 2ar/2nr but instead recognize what the other team needs to win for them to gain access to the ballot. Is it framework and links you can pretty easily win just by beating debate being a research method and the perm to resolve the links (or if the alt is kicked then if u win framework there is no way to fix current violence).

Quick Important Update--as I read this back it seems like I am worse for the K than I think I am. I am just grumpy and things frustrate me but if you out debate the other team on the flow iv historically and will continue to vote for you

DAs

Love these. I feel like there is a curve where debaters don't care enough about impact framing/turns case, then they care too much, and then they learn how it is a tool for you to win. It isn't a silver bullet but more so operates as adding a weight to the scale. How impactful it is depends on the round and it sometimes is the silver bullet but just not as often as me and some of my peers thought it was.

CPs

Judge kick DOESN'T MATTER UNLESS the perm shields, the perm links, or there is offense to the cp. This is because judge kick is ONLY useful for the neg and ONLY WHEN the CP negatively impact the neg team THAT RARELY HAPPENS. I really don't get why if I think the CP doesn't solve but it doesn't implicate the debate why my decision changes. Often times I found myself watching rounds where after the decision teams ask judges if judge kick would change anything but in almost all cases it wouldn't. So yeah Ill judge kick in this instance.

The real question is would I judge kick IF THE CP IMPLICATES THE DEABTE. Depends on how the condo debate goes 2ACs that are 5-10 seconds probably won't get you this. If it is the bare minimum for arguments tho in the 1AR I am likely to not kick. I think this is due to me wanting to reward 2ac foresight of more condo due to an offensive CP strategy.

Case

Love me a case debate I think 2ac's on case are way too blippi since judges just hear the short hand through the debate and let the 2ar get away with nonsense. Often times I stood up and gave a 2ac case in 30 seconds knowing it just doesn't matter to most judges. Because of this I will shift to letting some get away (I think it is unfair to force debaters to rapidly change for my taste). I do think the neg needs to call teams out on this as one of UMN's teams got a lot of success by in depth case debate in response to short 2acs.

T

Big fan!! I did both sides so not much err neg/aff bias. I think it can be blocked out but typically best T speeches go off the blocks for a prolonged time to debate interp v interp.

Reasonability is offense for why T debates are bad but it needs either a good we meet or a good reason why your c/is are so similar (imagine subs is 10% vs 11%).

Theory

If the neg is even on the flow ur not going to lose on this unless you are egregious. Maybe abusive CPs will be rejected but typically those are beatable in easier ways.

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument. and dont read tricks please :)))))

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

I do not really understand the trend of reading soft left affs in policy vs policy rounds but if it is working for you I am certainly willing to vote on them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can probably be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THE CRITICISM

I think they are usually pretty good arguments but I feel as though they are often times assumed to come prior for no particular reason and I wont just arbitrarily do that for you. I need a substantial amount of explanation for me to feel comfortable voting on denser theories like afropessimism, baudrillard, lacan etc.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

dont read them please :)

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

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.

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

Hi,

Thank you for taking the time to read this. A little bit about me, I have a business degree focusing on economic and supply chain issues utilising computer software.

I debated for 7 years and have judged for close to 9 years. I work in hotel sales and also coach Miss Universe, Miss USA, and other national pageant systems in Question and Answer and interview.

For policy debaters, I allow tag team cross ex. Each team has an allotted 6 minutes for asking questions and answering questions. Please split it equally amongst the two of you. I do not care where you speak or when you speak but I just want it to be educational for the both of you.

I prefer to judge quality over quantity. If you can articulate your argumentation well and tell a good story you are most likely going to get high speaker points.

Any debater that has appeared before me they you will tell you three things. I move my rounds very quickly, I despise partners being rude or dismissive of each other and that I want you to enjoy yourself in round.

I am generally laid back and seek to only serve as a timekeeper for the most part. That being said I will intervene if necessary.

I am happy to explain argumentation or my decision process in depth after the end of a round or you can get a hold of my email and I will be in depth. Debate should be educational and I am here to educate and provide an insight and I am open to dialogue.

If I am judging an LD

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 currently a coach at 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 absolutly ask or email me about it i really enjoy it). My Kritik literature however is not super deep so there are plenty of terms in that space that I wont understand. I think debate is about having fun and making arguments that you truly care about and are intrested 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.

Hi! I'm sabeeh (he/him) and I'm a senior at Edina. I mainly do policy, but have done LD too! I have reached bid/outrounds in both events on the nat circ. You don't need to call me judge or anything, you can call me by my name. I split my policy and LD paradigm, but both are applicable.

MN Policy State Champ 22-23 -- Edina MG 4ever <3

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

don't be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. i am far from the most formal judge - i'm barely older than y'all - don't worry about eye contact, clothing, etc - i care about good debating more than artificial chivalry.

tech>truth

ONLINE DEBATE

I will try my best to keep my camera on, but if it's off make sure to ask if I'm ready before starting a speech. In an ideal world we would all have our cameras on, but I understand that isn't always possible so don't worry if you'd rather have it off. Please please please go a little slower - fuzzyness and shtuff make it so so hard to flow.

POLICY

overview

Tag team cx is fine - if you high-five every time you switch speakers (shamelessly stolen from Sandy Bolton Barrientos) i'll give you +1 speaks. Don't be mean in cross, being assertive is fine, but if you see me looking angry take it down a few notches - I will interject if it gets outta hand. Again I love seeing (and participating in) passionate and pointed cross, but there is a difference between talking over someone, and being determined.

I've competed on Arm Sales (19-20), CJR (20-21), Water (21-22), and NATO (22-23). I think individually I am more of a K debater, however my partnerships are typically flex. That being said, I have gone for a hard policy aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/Kritical aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me.

I'm not ideologically opposed to most arguments, but don't read anything that will make the round an unsafe place. If it is questionable (spark, wipeout, etc), ask your opponents.

DA/CP

not a ton that needs to be said here - if you have any questions email me lol

Ks

My knowledge is mainly in queer pess, set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. I've been on both sides of K v. FW debates, and don't think I have a huge preference or argumentative preferences. I will say if you go for something other than T-USFG against a Kaff in the 2nr, I'll boost your speaks by 1, and if it's not in the 1nc you'll get at least a 29.

T/Theory

I want to make this super clear - going for T in front of me will be an uphill battle. It is not that I am against it, but I think these debates get into tiny details really fast, and I get confused - please make my ballot as clear as possible. Make the violation clear, show me in round abuse.

I don't have a good number of condo that I will stand firmly by. I would probably say 3 if you asked me, but if you debate it well enough I'll vote on it. I think that condo is the only real reason to reject the team (aside from T), but I can be convinced otherwise. Also, I think supercharging condo with other reject the args (perf con, agent CPs, PICs bad, etc) is super compelling.

I don't think it is guaranteed that T comes before condo, but my threshold for T coming before condo is SUPER low.

LD

1 - Ks

1 - Larp

2 - Trad

4/maybe should strike or use a dif strat - Phil/Tricks

*read my policy paradigm if you have time - should give you better insight

*if you are going for phil/tricks over explain

*without another fw or if fw is a wash i will default to util

*please please please give me a roadmap of the CONTENTIONS

Speaks

Ok so I probs average at a 28.5 BUT

*if you say the opp. dropped something they didn't -.5 (-1.0 if you keep saying it or it's blatantly wrong)

*if you tell me you read my paradigm +.25

*if you opensource all rounds (and tell me) +.25

*if you say B.F.F.R in a speech +.25

*every time you count down before starting a timer -.25

*if you laugh (in a mean way) during cross or a speech I will tank your speaks.

Note!

I most likely will not vote on out-of-round events. However, if there is in-round behavior, feel free -- I'll still vote off the flow though so be prepared to stake the debate on it.

Hi I am Kate and my pronouns are she/her

**For Eden Prairie LD: I have never judged LD before! I competed in policy for 4 years in high school and this is my second year coaching and judging policy. I will try my best to give you as valuable feedback as I can but be aware my background is in policy and k debate. 

knozal@macalester.edu

Debated for Rosemount 2017-2021

Sociology student at Macalester 

Coach at Highland Park 2021-present

I will try my best not to do any work for you. In the words of Nathan Wodarz "I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part"

Think of your job as a debater is to first have fun, second learn a lot, and third, make my job as a judge easy by keeping the flow clean and do your best in your last rebuttal to write out my ballot for me.

Now what you are really here for: Yes read your k aff or neg but do the work to win your offense. As much as I love K debate it matters to me who did the better debating and won the tech level. I don't think I have too many positive or negative thoughts about other positions but if I find I do I'll try to keep that to myself and let the teams figure it out in the round.

I really want to see you have fun and learn as much as you can from every round :)

Judging Paradigm:

Reece Peters

Email:

reecepeters1@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated at Eagan High School for four years, three of which being on the Policy Debate team. 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.

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 so long as they are well-substantiated. 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.

Note that "Default" is the operating term in the above header, and I am willing to be persuaded to vote on any argument that is supported well-enough and doesn't inherently create a hostile debate environment.

Argument Preferences:

No specific argument by default will be rejected by me. If you can argue it, I want to hear it. I do have a word of warning however:

-I've never had the greatest relationship with dense K-theory. Please, 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.

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.

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.

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com

Debater Experience:

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and am currently involved in NFA-LD at UNL

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the philosophical roles of the judge. I try to think I am tabula rasa but I haven’t judged enough to really know my application of my personal opinions to debate.

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

Excessive flashing (including emailing) is prep, normal flashing isn’t. If your team has done excessive flashing within the round or in the past I may say flashing is part of the prep. I will try to keep track of time but hopefully so will everyone in the round but the person taking prep/giving speech MUST time. For prep I think using it before cross x is underutilized, so I may reward more strategic uses of prep.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

I think it is bad for the judge to be using speech docs to flow. I will want you to flash/email them to me so that I have a record of what’s going on in the round, and I have something to do pertaining to the round during prep, but I will not look at my computer to check the speech doc unless I want to read specific wording or was called to in the round. You must be quite clear on title and on the author, the in card speaking must be 80-90% clear English. I can spread probably faster than you can and be more clear. If I call clear it probably means be more clear but the fastest way for you to be clear is to go a little slower.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think that debate is still a verbal activity, I did policy debate, but I pride myself on my clarity when spreading. I must be able to understand you for me to flow you.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I’m going to put my average at somewhere around 27.5 -28, below is because I didn’t know what to do, bad time allocation, bad argumentation, bad debating, bad treatment of the other team, etc. Above is cause ur gOoD. I will get more frustrated at good debaters doing shitty things than bad debaters being ignorant about what they should do.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say it, but probably not more than 2 or 3 times, my pen not flowing should be another sign, or me looking at you confused, or my pen down if you’re repeating the argument over and over again.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

I think a lot of the evaluation of cards should be done by the debaters. I get when time-pressed that its hard to really quote evidence and if you tell me to look at a piece of evidence for something specific and a good reason why (i.e.: They power tagged this card, nowhere in the card does it say anything about a positive influx of immigrants. This card is key to their DA structure and if they don’t have that warrant then they do not have a casual link chain and the DA should go away.)

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No (unless it goes against what the debater is twisting the card to go against, if that is the case the student should have probably invoked an ethical challenge), that would be stupid because you could read one word and I would evaluate the whole thing. Read what is important and backs up your point. There exists a lot of power-tagging, long tags, and over highlighting. Power tagging should be called out in round, long tags and over highlighting only hurt the number of arguments you can make.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

The debaters said that evidence is key, but the opponents have it wrong. Or comparing solvency cards if the debaters didn’t do enough comparison. I might look at evidence if I don't think there is enough analysis in the round for me to resolve the debate.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality: Probably good. I like a good T flow but there are many different interpretations of that. Just use examples and analysis to prove your point.

Theory for the aff versus counter plans and/or kritiks: Pretty key for protecting ground. I think that there are many underutilized arguments when being hit by theory. If you are right, go for it; if you are wrong then you really shouldn’t. I would be fine if you have a max a few ways of winning at the end of your last rebuttal, but going for multiple and not doing enough on any of them would be a problem. If you are worried than try to go for one winning strat.

Aff's need to be topical: Depending on the philosophical nature of debate this is could be required. I think that is probably a good thing under a policymaker framework but not key under a games playing/educator mindset. Which way I vote for depends on the round, but framing your framework arguments compared to what philosophical framework debate. If you read the whole paragraph you can see it depends on how the round goes and arguments made.

Performance teams: These are always very cool when done well, but the same answer as before. It depends on what are the benefits of debate and what is my philosophical role as a judge.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Good debates that explain the WHY question all the time. Why do they violate? Why does that matter? Why is that key to debate? Debaters who answer the why question will win. Analysis wins over unwarranted claims. Don’t use author names as warrants. Explain the warrant from the card that proves your point or disproves theirs.

Could you list out some situations here?

I did do policy things in policy debate, but I am quite familiar with Ks. I like good K debates but those are few and far between. I think comparisons are easier to do for policy plans/neg strats. Do what you do is best, and I hope I can inform you of what I like after the round and update this profile along the way. I will keep a post of my previous votes in a spreadsheet, so I can track them over time. Going for more policy stuff and slowly getting more K is probably the best advice I can give you for adapting, hopefully, if I have a bias I will see it soon and put it in my paradigm.

Random Thoughts from other sites on what a judge philosophy should include:

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, so I won’t support your 2 card K you are going for in the 2NR, do the analysis before the final speech.

Emphasize key arguments, do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author claims.

Argument Structure:

T: Should have Definition, Violation, Standards, Voters. Framework should be similar but more robust.

DA/Adv: Unq/status quo, link/solvency, IL and Impact

K: Link, Impact, Alt

CP: Text, Solvency

Other arguments that are not on this list probably don't have a solid checklist to go through so just explain everything in-depth.

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 very 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.

Hello, I'm Jamie Snoddy (pronounced like snotty, but with the [d] sound). I'm a community coach for Patrick Henry HS and also a coach at the University of Minnesota. I did a year of debate at Patrick Henry and debated two years for UMN. I graduated in 2018 with a Bach. in Linguistics (Puns get you extra speaks). Please add me to the email chain with the following email address: snodd003@umn.edu

Overview

Learning is the main focus of debate. I like arguments to be presented in a clear and logical manner (it can even be flawed logic, as long as it's coherent and feasible, I think it's legit.). So, there aren't many things I'm against teams running. TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR PLZ! Impact Calc and Roll of the ballot args are great.

Place a higher precedence on presenting evidence clearly and consistently (so not reading things incoherently fast unless e.v.e.r.y s.i.n.g.l.e t.h.i.n.g. is in your speech doc. Which it shouldn't be. If I'm not looking at you and typing, you're good. If I'm looking at you and leaned back, I'm waiting for flow-able info. If I'm looking at you and nodding I'm listening to good points that I feel have already been flowed.

Full disclosure: I'm a sucker for wipeout/death good args, idc which side it is lbvs. Maybe it's the high school emo in me. Best way to combat these args, to me, is go all into VTL and some change better than no change and, if applicable, the ppl who are getting effed over by sqou violence still don't want to die... then that gets into cruel optimism, yada yare yare.

Case

I'm fine with no plan affs. You just have to reeeeeally be ready to answer FW and T. You need to convince me of why running this aff w/o a plan will not work within the resolution. I'm a former 2A so sympathize with defending your case baby from the big scary neg lolz jk.

CPs

As long as the Neg can keep track of all the CPs they have, have all the cps you want. Just be ready to defend needing all of the cps if the aff chooses to go that route. Condo... is... a thing... I guess. The more cps you have, the high chance I'll believe condo bad args, cuz having that many multiple worlds is sorta abusive. So if you're running 7 or 8 cps, they better be dispo or uncondo, or have really great answers for why having that many condo worlds is necessary...

DAs

Fine and necessary args in policy.

Ks

Great! I love Ks and really love non-basic Ks. I don't like flimsy, vague alts. Even if it is as simple as Reject "x", I need to know what exactly what the world of the alt will look like and why it should be preferred to the aff's.

T

Topicality, to me, is different than theory (I flow them sep) and as long as voters are attached to it, I'll consider the args.

Theory

Is a prior question and needs to be addressed before talking about anything else. If we can't agree on how we talk to each other, then what does anything we say matter? ROB args are persuasive if voters are attached to it.

Speaker Points

Switching between hs and coll. debate sometimes throws me of, but I try to be really generous with them? If you're chill, courteous and not a butt during a round you get higher speaks.

Cutting people off aggressively and being unnecessarily snarky looses you speaks. I get if you're having a bad day or are going through some things that it may get taken out here in our community. If that's the case, just give the people in your round a heads up that you're in a mood.

***PLEASE, I BEG YOU, if nothing else, read my note about speed/clarity!!! This issue is paramount in online debate!***

"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 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 both trad policy arguments and Ks.

I have now been coaching for close to 2 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.

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 spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Top 3 Notes!

1. I FLOW ON PAPER AND HAVE POOR HEARING. I am OK with spreading, I think speed makes for much more in depth and rigorous debates, but with great speed comes great responsibility…

- please use a microphone in a headset/headphones if you have the tech, the laptop mics also pick up echoes and it makes it way harder than it needs to be for my ears

- please send out analytics if you are at all willing

- please send out marked docs at the end of your speech

- please SIGN POST & give me 1 second to move onto the next flow

- please use different intonation and sign posting to indicate you are going onto the next argument on the flow to give me the cue to finish up and move along with you so I can keep an organized flow. Not all speeches will be organized the same way, but if I know where to put things so they line up, then we are all in a better place.

- 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, or even really process the very dense argumentation and smart things you are saying.

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because you did not accommodate me, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it. I am not afraid to tell you I did not get everything or missed something. To me, that is on the debater, not the judge. There are way too many people in this activity that like to pretend they can hear every word no matter what. I am not one of those people. This is still a communication activity, and I earnestly believe the debaters should keep that in mind.

2. 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. I will always do this, without fail, I promise you. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.

3. 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.

Specifics!

"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.

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: Unless otherwise proven, extinction will indeed outweigh. Sure, fiat is illusory, and scenario planning can be good, but again, what is the educational impact/value to those arguments? Framework will really guide my decision, so I encourage debaters to invest time there.

K v. K: Framework, friends, framework. Without framework we are but scurvy-ridden sailors in a sea of K goo. It may be helpful to know that I think of perms as a test of the links/competition, and not so much as an advocacy.

Ks, general:I will not just grant you ontology or your theory of power or what have you. You still have to...provide warrants for it... No alt needed if you're worried about that, as long as there is framework/framing that supports it. I also think situating your K in/to the context of debate clarifies things for me quite a bit.

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: Although I am personally ideologically predisposed to critical arguments, I earnestly attempt to keep my thoughts and assumptions based in the debate that happened, and I believe I am successful in that. Letting bias influence me is not good for anyone's education. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.; these worlds are not so polarized to me. I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

LD, random arguments about wearing shoes or whatever: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.


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 have a background in debate as a debater, coach, and judge on the local and national circuits. I have coached successful teams in Michigan and Indiana. I'm looking forward to becoming more acquainted with the debate community where I now reside in Minnesota.

Paradigm

I am open and willing to vote for any and all positions and frameworks. That being said, I do have some preferences. I do not allow these personal preferences into the round as I strictly like to evaluate the round according to the line-by-line argumentation I see on my flow and the framework arguments set before me. Depending on the round, this isn't always clear. In the event that teams are not doing any (or enough) specific evidence/analysis comparison or have failed to establish a clear framework for round evaluation, here are some of my preferences:

"Policy" vs "K" framework

If you ask me outside of a round, I'll tell you that my preference is for a robust policy debate that exists solely in the post-fiat world. This does not mean you can't run a kritik or a critical affirmative in front of me. However, if neither team establishes a calculus for weighing pre-fiat vs post-fiat implications, I'm likely to default to my preference for policy.

Theory

I think there is some justification and necessity for Negatives to explore a wide variety of counter-advocacies and topicality arguments in an effort to equalize ground. If forced to intervene, this framework would serve as a baseline for evaluating standards for fairness, abuse, and education.

This doesn't mean that the affirmative can't argue or win a "___ CP is abusive/illegitimate " argument in front of me. We all know that even when the negative has ample ground, they will still try to stretch it. Affirmatives have every right to maintain a fair division of ground.

Generally, I favor the view that a counter-advocacy (CP, kritik alternative, etc) should be positionally competitive as described by Brett Bricker: https://bit.ly/2UIXu44

It's probably fair to say that theory debates have had the most actual effect on shaping the way we debate. In other words, over the course of time, there have been real world impact to theory debates. Keeping that in mind, while I believe you need to prove in-round abuse, I also believe you need to win a scenario for future abuse/harm. To me, this impact analysis is what moves a theory argument beyond whining ("We weren't prepared for this; it's abusive") to a righteous defense of the activity.

Speaker Points

I like to award speaker points for:

- Clean, persuasive line-by-line clash and analysis

- Clear and effective speech structure; clear sign-posting, a roadmap that is strategic and clean, no hopping back and forth

- Compelling speech; using tone and speed changes to highlight arguments and increase engagement

- Creativity

Here are some ways to lose speaker points:

- I don't think the ability to share evidence relieves you of the obligation to be clear.

- Rudeness in speeches or CX.

Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before the round.

Hi -

Update for 2022-2023 - I don't have any experience with this topic so make your explanations easy to follow please!

I coached novice debate for 2 years and judged mostly novice rounds during those two years. 

I debated 4 years at SPASH and traveled nationally my junior and senior year, debated a kaff my senior year.

TL;DR

Do you and we will probably be fine, sans the obvious, racism/sexism/homophobia/classism etc. And please don't be rude to your partner or the other team.

I'm not going to do any work for you or pretend to understand your K, even if it is common debate literature, explain it to me as if I was a clueless teammate.

Truth over tech, to an extent

I've found that I default aff unless I am given a reason not to vote aff - this means try to engage the case

Include me on the email chain (julyella@gmail.com)

You can probably sway me on any of the following positions so take the below lightly.

Longer Explanations

Policy - I read mostly soft left affs but can an enjoy a heg good v. heg bad debate if that's what you want. I don't have a lot of opinions here, just do what you do well.

DA - you need a clear link chain. I wrote a lot of politics affs during my time in debate so if it's new that's cool and I do follow the news pretty closely.

K's - I'm not great with jargon and I kind of hate that we all pretend to understand K's, so as I said above I'm not going to pretend, it's on you to explain your K to me. The K's I would consider myself familiar with include, cap, fem, security, and model minority.

Kaffs - Like I said above I ran a model minority Kaff my senior year, be very clear about your ROB so I know what I am voting for. Also I prefer a short storytelling o/v but its not necessary.

Fwk - Its a good time skew strategy and I appreciate it for that. I might vote for it, I might not, depends on the round. In these rounds I edge slightly toward tech over truth.

-Clash of civs might be hard for me to follow but I believe it to be the best way to beat a kaff, and that means getting creative

Case - If you write your own analytical solvency deficits or theory that's new, AWESOME! I love new creative arguments because I honestly think that is the best thing debate can teach so go for it and try out the new positions in front of me, I would love to give you feedback.

Speed

Probably fine, I'll say clear twice and if by then it doesn't get fixed, that's on you, not me.

Pre-Round Etiquette

A big problem I found with the activity was that knowing judges actually meant something in the round and I don't think that's how debate should function so if I know you from somewhere, or have judged you often enough to have developed a friendly relationship, save the chit-chat for after the round. I found that I was always super intimidated by teams that were having a conversation about the last tournament they were at with the judge while I was prepping so let's just not do that. I'm not going to punish you for it but try to keep in mind the other team's perspective.

Speaker Points

The one thing that will dock your speaks dramatically is rudeness and racism/sexism/homophobia/classism.

Speaks will be mostly predicated off of cx and rebuttals.

Other Notes

If you ever need any pads or tampons at a tournament come find me, even if I am debating, coaching, or judging and I will help you out

Good Luck! Have fun and do your best!

Questions - julyella@gmail.com

Amalia Tenuta-

Debated four years on Kansas/National circuit in highschool. I debate freshman year at Emory. I coach for a local Kansas team--I've only judged at two tournaments on this topic. Fine with any rate of delivery, as long as you're clear. I'll flow what I can understand, if you're not clear on tag statements or arguments it won't make it onto my flow.

DA's--Fine with generic links/DA's-establish a proper link story and be aware of your argument. That will validate the context of the link and how much weight I give it.

CP's--Fine with PICs, Consult CPs, and Adv. CPs. Condo is a debate to be had, a dropped condo arg by the affirmative does not produce an automatic win for the negative. I have an extremely high threshold for voting on condo.

K's--Totally fine with the K. I'm most familiar with arguments pertaining to anti-blackness and queer theory. really I'm cool with any K and can follow it.

T--Always a debate to be had--the interp, violation, and voters should be made clear coming out of the 1NC. I'm fine with competing interps, but will follow the line by line/ flow. I have a high threshold for voting on T.

Misc--

I'm fine with no plan text/performative affs.

Everyone be nice to each other, being rude will only result in a loss of percieved ethos and speaker points.

Feel free to ask my any questions about my experience/preferences in round.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

She/her 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

Rosemount High School (MN) / Conflicted against Farmington (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (1987-1991), 2 years CEDA (1991-1993)
Coaching/Judging Experience: 31 years judging, 17 of these actively coaching
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

New 2022-11-19.

Building on evidence highlighting argued below. If the highlighted portion of your evidence is word salad and/or changes the author's intent when read in isolation, I will stop the round and immediately vote on an ethical violation. This means a loss and minimum allowable points to the offending team. National circuit evidence standards are atrocious and need to be changed. This may be quixotic, but so be it.

--

Yes, email chain.

I have changed the email address I use for email chains. The old one will still work, but please use wodarz.debate@gmail.com going forward

New 2021-10-02: Your evidence highlighting should read in grammatically correct sentences when read in isolation. I will consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis (generally, there should be a legitimate argumentative purpose for doing otherwise).

None of the older profile information below is out-of-date, feel free to refer to it for additional information.

I'm definitely an older coach but I like a lot of what K debate has brought to the community. I'm unique among the Rosemount coaching staff in that respect.

I most enjoy judging rounds where the aff and the neg have an underlying agreement on how the round should look. I prefer to judge either policy v policy debates or K v K debates.

Some details:

* I prefer that the negative engage with the affirmative. The better the specificity of link arguments, the more likely the negative is to win their chosen arguments.

* I roughly think of my judging philosophy as "least intervention". My hope is to try to not do any work for debaters, but this is the ideal and rarely occurs in practice. So I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part. I do my best to not interject personal beliefs into the debate, but realize this isn't always possible.

* I don't like most process or actor CPs, but often vote for them. When neg CP lit says a topic should be left to the states, that lit never means "all 50 states act in concert" but instead usually means "states should be free to not do anything". Affs could do a lot with this, but never do.

* I despise politics DAs, but again find myself voting for them. In 30+ years of debating and judging these, I think I've heard one scenario that had any semblance of truth to it. I think negative over-simplification of the political process and the horse-race mentality engendered by these DAs has been bad for debate and bad for society as a whole. But again, I rarely see Affs making the arguments necessary to win these sort of claims.

* I have a debate-level knowledge of most Kritiks. My knowledge of the literature is about 20 years old at this point and I rarely cut cards for my teams. What this means if you're running a K (either aff or neg): assume that I'm a judge who is willing to listen to (and often vote for) what you say, but don't assume any specific knowledge. This is particularly important at the impact level. If I have a warranted and detailed explanation as to why your model of debate is essential,

* In debates between similarly skilled teams, Framework debates usually come down to "is the aff in the direction of the resolution?". If so, I usually vote aff. Otherwise, neg. If you're a policy team, you're probably better off going for even a Cap K in front of me than for Framework.

* Even in person, you're not as clear as you think you are. This is doubly so in online debates. Slow down a little and you'll likely be happier with my decision.

* It's come to my attention that some teams have shied away from going for theory because of what I've written below. If you believe your violation is true, go ahead and go for it. My preference is to decide debates on the issues, but if I can get good clash on a theory or T flow, that's OK too.

* Disclosure theory is exempt from the preceding bullet. If you can win the debate on disclosure theory, there are better arguments you can make that you can also win on.

* If you're a big school on the circuit where I'm judging you, running a "small schools DA" will likely see speaker points reduced.

* I don't like a 6+ off neg strategy. If you're obviously far more skilled than your opponents and still do this, speaker points will suffer. Regardless, I'm probably more likely to vote on condo bad or perf con than most judges (but see everything else I've written on theory)

* I love good topicality debates. I also love creative (but defensible) affirmative interpretations of the topic. I default to "good is good enough"/reasonability for the aff on topicality, but can be persuaded to vote for the competing interps model. Just saying "reasonability invites judge intervention" isn't enough though. Believe it or not, so does competing interps.

==============

Older Profile:

I actively coached from 1993 until 2001 before largely leaving the activity for a dozen years. I got back into coaching in 2013 and have been in the activity since then. My time away from the activity proved to profoundly affect the way I view debates.

I view debate as an educational activity and my primary responsibility as a judge as facilitating that education. It is important to note what this means and what it does not mean. What it does not mean is that I like arguments that impact in "voting issue for reasons of education." Leaving aside the irony of the lack of educational value in those sorts of arguments, I am not saying that I will vote for the "more educational" team, whatever that means. What I do mean is that the round can be a very educational environment and my position is to assist that as best as I can. Argumentatively, I am looking for well-reasoned logical arguments, preferentially with strong evidential support. Counterplans which are contingent on successful consultation of any sort are almost always lacking here. Almost all politics DAs that I've ever heard have this problem as well. You're going to have a much easier time if you run a DA, CP, or a K with a solid literature-based link story.

Theory and Analytics: In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. I have a large presumption against voting on theory, although I have voted on it. To win on theory, you'll probably need to spend substantial time in the last rebuttal and offer a persuasive story. SLOW DOWN when arguing theory. Give me a tag that I can get on my flow and then explain it. Five consecutive four word responses will likely get the first one or two responses flowed, and the rest missed. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote on it. The explanation is the most important part of the argument.

Topicality: Topicality stems from plan action. Placing the resolution in plan text or looking to solvency do not prove topicality. My default view is that if the affirmative interpretation provides an equitable division of ground and plan meets their interpretation, they will win the argument. Generally speaking, if the negative wins topicality, they win the debate. I have been persuaded to vote contrary to my default views in the past. The negative need not win that their interpretation is best for debate, but it helps.

Non-traditional Affirmatives: I don't insist that the affirmative run a plan but any planless aff better be prepared to explain how they engage the resolution. I'm much more willing to accept a non-traditional interpretation of the terms of the resolution than I am to accept an aff that completely ignores the resolution or runs counter to the direction of the resolution.

Evidence sharing/email chains: As of 2017, I have updated my philosophy on these. I would now like to get all speech docs that are shared. Please add me to any email chain using nmwodarz+debate@gmail.com. Please note that I will not use the speech doc to help flow your speech. [2021-12-14: Use wodarz.debate@gmail.com now]

One notable change for the worse over the last decade is the terrible practices that paperless debating has fostered. I approve of paperless debating in the abstract and in a good deal of its implementation, but teams have taken to receiving a speech doc before the speech as a crutch and flowing and line by line debate have suffered as a result. I'm not happy with the blatant prep time theft that pervades the activity, but I recognize that any gesture that I make will be futile. I will take action in particularly egregious cases by deducting from prep time (or speech time, if no prep remains).

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I judge far more policy than LD, but I'm not a stranger to judging or coaching LD. I have no predispositions toward any particular style, so largely you should feel free to do what you're most comfortable with. I will not vote for a policy argument just because I'm predominantly a policy judge, although I will listen to them. Be sure to offer full explanations. LD time formats can be challenging, prioritize explanations over evidence. Anything above that isn't specific to policy will apply in LD as well. Your explanations are the most important part of the debate.

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD