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

My name is Jamie Maiers, and I am a teacher coach for the MNUDL and a PhD student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities who studies debate in education. I have been working with the MNUDL for five years and have been a staff member at MDAW at Augsburg University for the past several summers.

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.

maier264@umn.edu

Experience level:

I've been in debate for 11 years. 4 years as a student, 5 years as a coach and 2 years as a Program Coordinator for the Minnesota Urban Debate League.

2025 Sections/State:

I haven't had a lot of time to judge on this topic. That means that I'm not exposed to the meta of the topic, nor do I have a great amount of subject knowledge. That means you probably have to do more work to explain to me what you are talking about and why you should win.

Having judged at sections I have a very good idea of the meta of the topic and am very familiar with it. I debated on the China topic during my senior year of high school and have a personal interest in AI and have done research in my free time into AI. As well as I've seen quite a few native ip affs, and I used to run give back the land my sophomore year of highschool. I am however still unfamiliar with the legalism stuff so you should explain your legal mechanisms to me.

Generalized thoughts

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.

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.

Kritiks

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 alarger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

Topicality

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.

Disadvantages

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

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.

Speaker Points

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 akintola@augsburg.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.

Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

Feel free to run any argument you'd like, as long as you run it well I will evaluate it. I have a strong negative preference to both K's and K-affs however, so if you do run them please be as clear and thorough as possible.

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 argument 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 and conditionality 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 (mostly data breach/cybersecurity/privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection). 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. Edit 1/6/25: this seems to have worked? Will keep doing it.

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 (vast majority of experience is 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.

I am a lay judge. Please outline your arguments and explain them in a manner that a lay judge is able to understand.

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.

she/her

i have inflitrated the minnesota circuit to spread derrick rose propaganda. #1 drose supporter here!!

1		D. Rose	2008-09	CHI	81	37.0	16.8	3.9	6.3	0.8	0.2	7.1	14.9	47.5	0.2	0.9	22.2	2.4	3.1	78.8	51.6	1.2	2.7	2.5	3,000	1,361	317	512	66	18	202	125	-121
2		D. Rose	2009-10	CHI	78	36.8	20.8	3.8	6.0	0.7	0.3	8.6	17.6	48.9	0.2	0.8	26.7	3.3	4.3	76.6	53.2	0.8	2.9	2.8	2,871	1,619	293	469	57	27	217	96	-37
3		D. Rose	2010-11	CHI	81	37.4	25.0	4.1	7.7	1.0	0.6	8.8	19.7	44.5	1.6	4.8	33.2	5.9	6.9	85.8	55.0	1.0	3.1	3.4	3,026	2,026	330	623	85	51	278	136	+498
4		D. Rose	2011-12	CHI	39	35.3	21.8	3.4	7.9	0.9	0.7	7.7	17.8	43.5	1.4	4.4	31.2	5.0	6.1	81.2	53.2	0.7	2.7	3.1	1,375	852	131	307	35	28	119	52	+289
5		D. Rose	2013-14	CHI	10	31.1	15.9	3.2	4.3	0.5	0.1	5.8	16.4	35.4	1.6	4.7	34.0	2.7	3.2	84.4	44.6	0.9	2.3	3.4	311	159	32	43	5	1	34	15	-33
6		D. Rose	2014-15	CHI	51	30.0	17.7	3.2	4.9	0.7	0.3	6.6	16.4	40.5	1.5	5.3	28.0	3.0	3.7	81.3	49.3	0.7	2.5	3.2	1,530	904	161	251	36	16	161	63	+122
7		D. Rose	2015-16	CHI	66	31.8	16.4	3.4	4.7	0.7	0.2	6.8	15.9	42.7	0.7	2.3	29.3	2.2	2.7	79.3	47.9	0.7	2.7	2.7	2,097	1,080	225	311	44	14	175	84	-166

if drose shows up with a signed autograph of his #1 bulls jersey I will give you the ballot and 30 speaks. Make it happen please!

please add jfrese016@gmail.com to the email chain

I am a coach at Washburn Highschool where I have been working since 2021.

I debated for a total of 6 years before I decided to stop debating. 4 were in high school at Glenbrook South and 2 at the University of Minnesota. I have qualified for the TOC once and the NDT twice

TLDR

I don't really have much to say in this paradigm I have previously had long paradigms that explained my view of each argument, but, I dont think that provided anything useful because the way you debate is a stylistic choice and I don't think judges should have a preference on what styles they vote for. It is my job as a judge to evaluate the flow and vote for which ever team I think wins the round. I will vote for any argument (excluding arguments that make the debate space harmful as I won't ignore my role is as an educator).

Ks--i really like these they are useful education that should be discussed in the debate space. I will vote on framework because I think the debate about framework is a useful conversation to have (how should our engagement with debate operate is a useful question and one that I really like).

Policy--this is the style i debated. i really like these I don't know if there is much more to say. I mean DAs, Ts, CPs, Turns, all are good.

Condo--I think that condo is fine but Ill vote for condo bad even against 1 condo if you win it.

If u want to read my full views of debate they are here

My experience is one mainly as debating policy, however, my more recent experience coaching have left me more focused on critical arguments, mainly the cap k and set col while also adding in a role as an educator inside of the space. I don't think that it should be up to the judges to determine the stylistic decisions they vote on it should be the argumentation. That said I won't vote for arguments that make the debate space harmful.

Kritiks

I typically think of kritiks as coming in a couple forms. One that focuses a criticism on the framework of debate or one that focuses more on an alternative. These are both very strong and I understand the strategic choice of keeping routes open, but, by the end of the debate I think that having the time to spend constructing a specific route is more sucessful than trying to keep all options open. It is much more persuasive if all the arguments you chose to go for use a similar foundation. This is extremely useful because if you spent so much time winning framework it will make certain case arguments, certain links better.

If you are debating against a kritik what helped me was trying to identify the route the neg's k takes and having a plan for each of these avenues. I think it really depends on the aff, but there are a few strategies against Ks. By strategies I mean what is the focus of the 2ar win on, because you should still have everything covered as much as it needs to.

-Perm, no-link--it is important to have a net benefit to the perm which can be alt fails, cede the ptx, the advantage, ect.

-Framework, extinction outweighs, alt fails--it is important to think through the implication of you winning framework. There are some Ks where they will just lose while other Ks have strong alts and impacts.

CPs

I am a fan of CPs. I don’t really have any leaning way I believe. I think theory typically isn’t the best strategy not because I won’t vote on it but unless the CP is really cheating then it typically is just easier for the neg to defend theory.

This is where I spent a lot of my time in debate doing coming up with cps.

DAs

I love DAs. The bad ones the good ones whatever da you want. I feel like this isn’t controversial.

T

I am a very good judge for T if you are ready on the tech level. I will peetty easially pull the trigger on less viable T violations if you are just ahead. I really like the focus being put on the implications of how debate would work.

This is also where I spent most of my time debating

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.

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.

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.

THE CRITICISM

This is what i have debated with, read, and coached the most so this is where I am most familiar (and subsequently hold harder lines for explanation). I enjoy innovations in critical literature quite a bit so long as it can be well explained.

For both, if you are not black, do not read afropessimism. I will not vote for you. I will generally have a strong predisposition against you if you read it in other rounds and change it in my round. I think that this is unique to afropessimism given how strongly the authors are have addressed the theory being uptaken by non-black scholars.

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 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.

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

I've come around, maybe tricks aren't that bad, but only if everyone there is able to know what is going on. I do not like hidden arguments in the middle of a block of analytics and i probably won't vote on the resolved apriori but I think that a lot of phil arguments (e.g. skep, trivialism, etc.) get a bad rep and aren't evil and are sometimes interesting to ponder thru. This is a philosophical forum after all. This is all to say: please don't read rapper trix, you can go for kant is the only way to resolve skep and maybe that skep argument is a presumption/permissibility trigger.

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.

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

My email is mart4516@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to ask for feedback.

I've been judging for 7 years out of high school. I have judged TOC bid tournaments in CX/LD/PF.

I am also an experienced parli for Congress.

Most debaters will tell you I am strict but caring. I value debaters mental health and safety above all else but I also will move a round forward if debaters aren't on task.

Tournament Specific:

TOC Digital Series:I hurt my back this week.

Policy, LD, PF

TLDR:

I actually have zero preference on what you read. K, T, Theory, CP, DA's, I am fine with. I mix tech and truth. If the truth is common knowledge (9 out of 10 people on the street know) I will default to the truth, otherwise I will default to tech. I am fine with tricks in LD. You can run IVI's, RVI's really whatever and I will do my best to understand it.

Topicality:

Yes, I will evaluate this as an apriori. For the aff I have a reasonable threshold, if you gut check meet I will probably be fine with it, unless it is dropped. Aff's that reject the resolution I am fine with as well. But you do need to be able to debate the T debate.

K's:

I understand most economic based K's (Neolib, Cap). I have a good understanding of (Antiblackness, Orientalism, Feminism and Set Col). Some of the more "eccentric" K's, Baudrillard-esque, I will do my best to understand but you are much better off prefing a judge who has a background.

I am fine with an aff being K, try to explain why you are doing such though, which you should be doing anyways.

For my sanity, please do not assume I know your lit base. If you want to check if I do just shoot me an email and I will be transparent.

Theory:

Sure, run it. Disclosure, tech check, if it is in front of me I will have to evaluate, but please for the sake of me prove in-round abuse. Most of the time I default theory to being apriori or an IVI.

Misc:

I am very much a laid back judge. Spreading is fine, send me a speech doc, I will yell clear 3 times and then I just won't flow.

If it is a TOC tournament or a break round I am prone to do much less work for you in terms of impact weighing. If it is a novice round I will do much more work.

If you are winning or there is a clear experience difference (looking at you Open divisions) try to make it more educational for the other students.

If you are going to run 30 speaks you better have a reason. If it is to combat racial/gender equity issues or something similar I am prone. Otherwise you just wasted 1 minute running an argument that I will not evaluate.

Congress

Most of this is from the point that I am the parliamentarian, if I am scoring just read General

General:

Varsity/TOC: I expect you to be prepped on both sides of the bills. This is a debate activity, be prepared on both sides. If cycle is broken before the last speech I will take note, if you are able to jump in and switch sides you will rise in my ranks, I take note of sponsorship speeches, questions, switching sides, and other things. Even if you aren't selected for questioning I am aware of your participation in the round.

Nov/JV: I hope you had prepped both sides but if we have to break cycle it is not the worst thing. I am aware that this is new to you and I am here to support you much more than you think. Feel free to raise Point of Inquiry and ask questions.

PO's:

PO's if done well will rank in my breaks. I generally allow 1 mistake per hour. You will be evaluated on your ability to manage the chamber. I try not to intervene as much as I can, I am keeping track of your mistakes on my sheet.

If this is a novice/Middle School round, I will hand hold you through it if you need it. I want you to be successful. If there are no people I will help you by letting you view my Parli sheet. I dislike debaters who abuse POI when there is a new PO especially if they were forced/voluntold to PO.

Rule Violations:

I am fine with adjudicating evidence challenges, if the point is raised I usually default to contacting tab and pushing back the hard stop in order to accommodate the evidence challenge.

TFA:

While I have never debated on the TFA I am versed in terms of the rules specific to the circuit. If I make a mistake I will not hold it against a student to point of order me.

Todd.mensink@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I am a highly experienced judge - having judged at multiple section, state and national tournaments. 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 keep a detailed flow, but know that it is about the same length when you spread or speak slowly, so while spreading may get more points on my flow - speaking slowly will result in getting more details of your arguments on my flow.

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 clashing values - (freedom, responsibility, equality, human life, etc.).

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.

Public Forum Debate

I judge public forum similarly to how I judge Lincoln-Douglas, with the exception that the framework debate is often less important or not included in PF rounds. In the absence of a stated framework for decision making, I will tend to default to a generic utilitarian framework to evaluate the round. The other thing that I would say is different is that what happens in Crossfire tends to take on a bigger role than what happens in CX in an LD round. I still only flow the speeches and you should not expect what happens in crossfire to be weighed in the decision unless you follow-up on it in a speech. Having said that, the PF decision often comes down to something exposed in Crossfire and followed up on.

Congressional Debate

Compared to other forms of debate, I view congressional debate as far more of a speech activity. When judging a congressional debate round, I try to put myself in the mindset of a reasonably intelligent constituent who is capable of being swayed by strong rhetoric. While I am OK with debate Jargon in other forms, in my opinion the purpose of congressional debate is to simulate good political rhetoric and shouldn't use terminology that isn't accessible to reasonably intelligent lay people. I expect people to speak at a reasonable speed in a conversational tone. It is still important that you make good arguments, but they are best when made in a way that connects both emotionally and logically. To score highly in the round, you should be making connections in your speeches, referencing the arguments of others in the chamber if it isn't one of the first couple speeches, and appealing to your fellow representatives to vote in favor or against the bill (not to affirm or negate).

On a side note, it is nearly impossible to write a perfect bill in a page or two. I prefer not to have the debate bogged down in details of the bill, but to focus on the basic idea of the bill. Appealing to people to vote against a bill because you agree with the sentiment but it isn't perfect really doesn't lend itself to compelling debate. I also would encourage any chamber to call the question before debate gets stale.

Policy Debate

I try to be as Tabula Rossa as possible when judging Policy debate. I come in open to any arguments. I have judged a few dozen rounds of policy in the last few years, but it is not my specialty. So, it is important that you can clearly explain why I should choose your side.

About Me

Hi I'm tom and I go by He/Him pronouns. I am the former head coach for Roosevelt High school. I debated for 6 years and competed for Yinghua academy and Highland park. I have now coached for 5 years coaching at yinghua academy and Roosevelt high school. 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.

Please add me to the email chain: Tommilmick@gmail.com. You can also reach out if you have any questions after your rounds or you want information on arguments.

My Preferences

How I weigh most debate args:

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

I really enjoy tech oriented debates and definitely have a tendency to lean towards voting tech in rounds. This is not to say I won't vote for a truth argument however If it comes down to it in the debate round I will most definitely vote the tech way just because I believe it creates a better debate space.

Policy ----0----- Kritik

As a debater I was much more familiar with Policy and definitely have more experience with policy oriented arguments however as a coach I have learned much more about Kritiks and definitely have gained a lot of experience and knowledge about kritiks especially through judging a majority Kritik debates. I will say though that with kritks you need to have clear framework and you need to have a clear story and mechanism for the Kritik because I will do very little to help you with the K through judge intervention.

Arguments

Theory:

I'm always down for a good theory debate definitely not something I get to see pushed through to either of the 2R's. For theory how I usually evaluate rounds is usually based off the tech in the round for Theory arguments as long as it is actually explained well. I will say there are definitely theory arguments that will be a hard sell if they do not have a solid foundational claim to why it matters in the debate round.

Ks:

I am a fan of Kritiks I think that they have a lot of depth to them and that they are a good argument in the debate space. If you are gonna run them in front of me please make sure that when you do please 1. actually flush out the story in round of the K. I need to be able to understand the story of the ult and the links. 2. The framework page cannot be messy because I am not doing the work to figure out how the framework page functions that is up to you to tell me. 3. tell me how I should evaluate both framework and K proper together because I need to know why your framework is proof of the Ks functionality.

K Affs:

I am also a fan of K affs but am definitely not the best judge for them. That is not to say you can't win them in front of me I just do not know the lit for a lot of K affs and also all of what I said about Ks apply to K affs. Make sure you also have good reasoning for why topicality is either bad or you meet under the interp and have it very prepped out because that is probably the biggest pit fall for K affs.

CP:

Throughout my entire time as a debater there were very few times that I didn't have a CP on the negative side so this is definitely an argument that I both appreciate and value as a pretty good argument in debate. I think that it holds a lot of value to have in tandem with most other arguments.

Topicality:

Topicality is a valuable argument that you should probably utilize in most rounds if you have the ability to run it with all the arguments you want to run. I will vote on topicality and have in the passed voted on a T rvi but it needs to be a really good rvi that has not been answered by the negative.

usc '26 (NDT/CEDA Policy)

edina '23 (HS Policy)

he/him

Hi! My name is Sabeeh and I am a second year at USC. In high school I did policy on the MN and nat circ. I worked at NSD as an LD lab leader summer of 2023 & 2024. TLDR: I flow and will judge the round in front of me, regardless of my argumentative preferences.

-----

Please add me to the chain -- sabeehmirza05@gmail.com

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

I have no problem with speed, but you need to be clear. There should be a distinction between your card and tag voice. Give me an indicator if you are moving on to the next card (ie. AND, NEXT, etc). The round should start on time. The email chain should be sent out and you should already be in the room.

tech>truth

General Stuff

Overview

I have gone for a big stick aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/planless aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me. I will vote for anything that wins the flow so long as it does not compromise the safety of anyone in round.

DA/CP

I'll judgekick unless someone tells me not to. Not a ton that needs to be said here otherwise.

Ks

My knowledge and experience is mainly in set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. I won't default to a "middle of the road" framework unless a debater introduces one, or unless the framework debate is truly irresolvable.

For kaffs: I've both read a kaff and gone for T against them -- I don't think that I am particularly picky on arguments. Kaffs need to be conscious of presumption -- I need to know what voting aff does and/or what it endorses. This should be the top of the 1ar and 2ar.

T/Theory

I will vote based off of the flow -- spreading through dense analytics is a bad idea.

LD

1 - Policy

1 - Ks

2 - Trad

2 - Theory

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

PF

I flow, and will evaluate arguments with an offense-defense paradigm. Speed is fine, paraphrasing evidence is not. I think sharing evidence is a good practice. I'm not super familiar with PF - I'm more than capable of evaluating your debate, but I am not in the loop on PF jargon/norms. Have the debate you want, and I will adapt to the best of my abilities.

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 pretty much judge on the local Minnesota circuit, Blake will be the one exception this year.

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.

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 any framework you can argue.

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

Argument Preferences:

No specific argument by default will be rejected by me (barring exclusive or otherwise harmful positions of course.)

Topicality- It's up the neg to show why a non-topical aff is "bad" (even if the violation is blatant or conceded.) 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.

I frequently find that I resolve clashless flows by seeing who did the most explanation / warranting on a certain position.

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.

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

TLDR: Debate should be about having fun and learning. Debate what you want but nothing matters to me until you explain why it should.

Round Framing:

"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." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. Do this to increase your team's speaker points by +.5 pts.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will be sad. This should not discourage you from asking, but instead I hope it forces you to consider what they highlighted before the round, but were not able to read.
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: Giving up large (Vibe check @20%) amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make "The Point" of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the position and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have clicked save. If it takes >2m to attach and send the email, you should count that as prep time.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line. (You should still explain what arg you are referencing ie: "They say the economy is strong in their 1st card on econ, Timothy 1820, but our williams 1821 card shows that the economy is really weak in the horse market!!!"
• I think you should send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

• De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
• Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list, but will bring up specifics through feedback told or written after the round.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

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 best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects how I should evaluate the impacts, which would bereally good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, please use specifics as to how you think my evaluation of it should effect the whole position or ballot. I will not use the unhighlighted portions of your cards for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. Unique but comprehensible standards that aren't just bland limits and ground would be really nice.

I default to competing interpretations (Offense > Defense), but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (meaning >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

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, but I think intervention when the arguments you want me to vote on have not been continued throughout the round. I probably won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Negatives shouldn't go for a 5 minute 2NR from one barely highlighted NC card without a lot of additional explaination. Affirmatives shouldn't go for their :10s 2AC condo bad arg without a lot of additional explaination.

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

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Interpretation of the Topic, Definition, Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but substantially more robust on your interpretation of the Topic and your voters.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact.

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency.

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt.

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

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.

**My paradigm got deleted so this is my abridged version.

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

Please add these two emails to the chain: lizzysabel@gmail.com ; eagancxdebate@gmail.com

Background: I did 4 years of high school policy debate at Eagan High School (MN) and now I coach there. I was a flex debater, but leaned more soft-left policy. I have judged A LOT of debates in the last few years, but I have been judging on and off for about 10 years. I went to the Universityof St. Thomas (Roll Toms) and double majored in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

TLDR: Do what you are going to do-- my job is not to police your arguments, but to evaluate the round that is presented to me. That being said, there is no human being without bias and I do my best to explain those below. Above all else, be kind.

FYI:

I'm probs flowing on paper, that I most likely stole from you. Make sure that I am switching to the next flow before you go into 10 theory args at top speed that aren't in the doc. Just look at me and I am VERY easy to read. I vote entirely off of the flow and if your arguments aren't on mine... you can't win on arguments that aren't there.

I can get down with any style of debate, you just need to tell me what my ballot means, how I should evaluate the round, and why that's a good model. If there is no framing or framework, I will default to a utilitarian policy maker/educational games player. Tech > Truth.

------

-Judge Adaptation is one of the best skills you can learn in this activity. If you watch me, I will give you visual cues.

-Clarity over speed. If you can imagine your theoretical maximum speed, I would like to hear you at about 80%. Please use short tags, organize your speeches, label positions, and identify arguments that you are responding to by signposting (e.g., 2AC 1) or short summary (e.g., "off the no link").

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

-My speaker points are pretty average/high. I would guess that in a decent varsity round, everyone gets somewhere around 28.5. I will reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debates, cross-examinations that develop the debate, and being kind.I will give you bonus speaks if you send out your analytics; I think this is good for the debate community and KIND. After the round, I will look at both teams' wikis and will give you bonus speaks for having sufficient disclosure.

-Show me your personality! People often forget about the actual speaking part of debate. I really enjoy it when people are funny and have personality in speeches, tags, cross ex, etc., but I do think there is a fine line between being entertaining and being snarky, mean, or demeaning. Being disrespectful in any way will hurt your speaks and may warrant me intervening mid-round to correct your behavior. Again, my role as an adult & educator in this space is first and foremost to keep everyone safe. I think the best debaters will have their persona as part of their performance.

------

T: Topicality is a default voter for me, but I still need an explanation of why. I went for T often as a debater and I have a decently high threshold of what arguments are necessary to be on that flow (imo it's basic but lol). I think T should be similar to a DA with "UQ, Link, I/L, and Impacts" and organized as such (definition/interp, violation, standards, voters). If one of those are missing it's going to be hard to get my ballot. Jurisdiction is a REAL voter and should be utilized more. I generally prefer competing interps over reasonability, unless it's egregious.

T/Framework: The neg should have a TVA that includes at least some of the aff. I also like to see a topical caselist. Switch side is not something I want to vote on, but will. For ground, I want affs to tell me what ACTUALLY links to their aff to prove that there is no ground loss/core generics that can still be accessed by the negative. Cap links to everything, roll with that... but explain WHY. I need both teams to tell me what their model looks like and why the other team's model leads to bad debates.

Theory: If you want me to vote on theory you gotta go all in and have PROOF OF ABUSE. I'm compelled to reject the argument, not the team unless there is proof of abuse. I think Condo can be a good thing but can be convinced otherwise pretty easily if there is proof of abuse. Also, I think PIC/PIKs are probably good, especially if they are specific to the aff. I'll vote on disclosure theory, but probably not on new affs bad.

Ks: I think the actual K literature base is deeply interesting, but it is often botched in a debate round. I'm familiar with most Ks. Regardless of what you think my prior knowledge is on the K, I need some explanation of what is happening. I have no beef with any lit base, but I do not know your tricks. It is very easy to convince me that links of omission are bad. I want SPECIFIC links TO THE PLAN ACTION, but will vote without them when necessary. Oh yeah, I should have a clear idea of what the alt does & what the world of the alt looks like if you think I'm going to vote on it. Alts are helpful, but not necessary. Sure, kick it-- but I need some FW args on why that should be legit. I think the aff always gets a perm, unless it's a K aff then I'm more flexible. Root cause is not a link.

CPs: Most CPs that are fashionable these days are not competitive. The first thing I think about on a CP is competition. I'm BEGGING you to have a net benefit (internal and/or external). Process & Conditions CPs are sus, especially without a solvency advocate. "Should" definitions are probably bad reasons for competition. Topical CPs are legit, 50 States fiat is probs not, but negs probs get to fiat. I'll judge kick if you tell me to (and why that is a fair thing for me to do).

DAs: Run any disad, please. I really appreciate the strategic choices in straight turning / impact turn debates. I wish more people would run DAs that turn case or just straight up read them as case turns. I need to hear all 4 parts of a disad (unx, link, int/L, & impact), except in very specific instances.

Performance: Do it! Have some framework/theory on why it should be legit. Performance is VERY cool when done well. You need to commit though.

Case: I need CLASH. It is really hard for you to win my ballot as the negative if you do not answer the aff. I also want at least some mention of case in the 2NR-- either in an overview, actually going to the flow, in impact calc, or cross application of links as DAs to case. This doesn't apply if you're going for T or Theory. Inherency is something I wish people would talk about more... it's part of the affs burden of proof.

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.

"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 :) No one really takes me up on this but the likelihood I forget to edit your ballot is really high, so please consider emailing me a back up option if you want clarification.

Background

Right now, I'm studying to be a HS English Language Arts teacher in a Masters of Education and initial licensure program at the University of Minnesota. I'm on track to be in the classroom by Fall 2025 and can't wait to get a policy team started wherever I end up!

Backing up a bit, 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 4 years and judging for 7. I am currently a policy coach at Washburn Senior High in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is part of the Minnesota Urban Debate League. I also coach speech and debate at the Harker School in California.

I've also worked full time for the Minnesota Urban Debate League and coached policy part-time at Edina HS, Wayzata HS, and the University of Minnesota.

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:

a) 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

b) 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.

c) 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 (I'm serious do a one-Mississippi in your head)

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.

Planless aff vs. T/framework: 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 have a clear model of debate to answer framework with, whether or not that includes the topic. 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.

Plan aff vs. K :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 and remember that even if I know the critical theory you're talking about, I still expect you to explain it throughout the debate because that is a significant part of the learning process and I want to keep myself accountable to the words you are saying in the debate so I don't fill things in for you.

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.

PF -

I think the biggest thing that will impact you in front of me is I just have higher expectations for warrants and evidence analysis that are difficult for you to meet when you have a million tiny speeches. Quality over quantity is a beneficial way to think about your approach in these debates!

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:

E-mail for the chain: zack@zackstach.com

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

Generally, 80% truth - 20% tech.

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 2023-2024 - 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've been judging since mu senior year of high school

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

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.

Rosemount High School (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (Rosemount HS), 2 years CEDA (Truman State - formerly Northeast Missouri State)
Coaching/Judging Experience:
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington (as co-program with Rosemount) 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

--

I would like to be on the email chain. Please use wodarz.debate@gmail.com for this.

Please have reasonable evidence highlighting. The highlighting should be reasonable enough that you would feel comfortable submitting it as part of a research paper. Generally, this means itshould read in grammatically correct sentences when read in isolation.

None of the older profile information at the bottom of the page 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 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 wodarz.debate@gmail.com. Please note that I will not use the speech doc to help flow your speech.

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