Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

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

Email: sambaumann04@gmail.com

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

Gosh, I needed to update this...

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

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

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

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

Noteworthy items:

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

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

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

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

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 11

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

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

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

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

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

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and warrants. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I am not voting on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, don’t misrepresent your evidence or make it sound “bigger” than it really is, as this can become an embarrassing moment when someone asks me to read the card and I see that it is hot garbage. One last area that I think is important to note is the citation debate. I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources, and that probably stems from other critical (k) positions. However, if it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, there may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond (this is especially the case in LD). I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX debate).

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

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

Persuasion:
As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

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

Cross-Examination:

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

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

The Ballot:
Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, as far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

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

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

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

Jeffrey Dixon

“Paradigm”

Experience: I debated in high school for three years and at Concordia College for four more (1990-1994). I’ve done some coaching and judging at both levels since then, especially when the Concordia College Summer Debate Institute was still active. I am currently Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University – Central Texas.

Axiology (Values): Debate is about more than Ws and Ls. It is about learning. We learn about argumentation, about the topic, about the intricacies of political life, about philosophies, about audience adaptation, and so forth. The goal of academic debate is to produce more informed and ethical communicators, not mere Sophists and manipulators.

Approach: Debate is a very, very complex academic game (in the sense that all strategic interaction can be represented as mathematical games, not in the sense of frivolity or triviality). To win this game ethically:

1. Be strategic in your choices. Argue what matters, and use as much of your opponents’ evidence against them as you can.

2. When there is clash, provide me with a standard of evidence which I should use to resolve the clash of evidence and/or argument.

3. Unless you are indicting scientific approaches (which is fine – we need to learn about the philosophy of science, too), think of how you might appeal to a social scientist, i.e. what evidence carries the most weight when evaluating the underlying theories behind the aff and neg positions.

4. Be explicit. Don’t rely on the judge to read evidence after the round unless there is an ethical challenge to the evidence. If it’s important, build it into your speeches. I am always looking for ways to resolve and weigh issues as instructed by the debaters. I don’t substitute my own preferences over issues unless I have to (because the debaters have failed to provide me with some framework or metaphor/paradigm to use when resolving the round).

5. Have fun. Debate something that interests you. I lost rounds I should have won when I got bored with the arguments, so make sure you do something that excites you and hopefully it will excite your audience as well.

Issues: I'm unaware of any issue preferences that I have. Whether it's theory, topicality, policy, counterplans, critiques/kritiks, etc -- just be sure to make it clear why it matters in the round and how I should evaluate it against other positions.

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

About me:

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

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

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

Topics coached: Water, NATO & Fiscal Redistro

Paradigm:

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

Background

Wayzata High School 2015-2019 (4 years of policy debate)

Concordia College 2019-2020 (1 year of policy debate, program now defunct)

University of Minnesota 2020-2024 (4 years of policy debate)

Varsity Policy Coach at Edina High School 2021-Present

I wasn't the most competitively successful debater, but I did nat circuit debate in high school and qualified to the NDT twice in college, so I would like to think that experience makes me at least relatively qualified to judge your round, whatever its content may be.

I use he/him/his pronouns.

Use an email chain, not SpeechDrop, for sharing evidence - my email is prostc3@gmail.com.

Three Most Important Takeaways

1. I would be proud if people described me as a “clash judge” – while I won’t pretend that I’m free of biases, I will try to hold your arguments to an equal standard regardless of what side of the imaginary “policy”/”critical” line they fall on. I’m firmly tech over truth, so please don’t change your preround or in-round strategy just because you think I’ll like it more; any preference listed here can easily be overcome by good debating. “Don't overadapt, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine.” – Rose Larson

2. Please be clear – I’m serious. I won’t flow off the doc, so I need to be able to hear every word you say (including on the text of cards) and you need to have some differentiation when you’re switching between cards, arguments and flows. I find it extremely dissuasive when people think that the person who is supposed to be evaluating their speech doesn’t need to be able to understand all of it. Despite this, please don’t get psyched out if I call clear – it doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just means you need to speak more clearly.

3. Please try to be kind to each other – while I won’t enforce any strict standards of decorum, debate is just so much more enjoyable as an activity when people treat each other with respect. To that end, if your strategy is based around trying intimidate, demean, or bully your opponents or anyone else in the room, please strike me.

K Affs/Framework

My voting record is pretty even in these debates, so just explain your arguments and we’ll be good.

On K Affs proper, I tend to be skeptical of affs that, for lack of a better term, “don’t do anything” – having a clearly explained method (examples appreciated) that solves a clearly identified impact will help you a lot. If you can't do that, then I tend to find presumption quite persuasive.

On T-USFG/Framework, I tend to prefer aff strategies based around a counter-interpretation (definitions appreciated) instead of ones based solely around impact turns – explain why their model of debate is bad, not why debate in general is bad.

Is fairness an impact? It can be, but you actually need to explain why it is – just saying that it’s an “intrinsic good” isn’t going to cut it.

I tend to be most persuaded by clash impacts on T/Framework, but feel free to go for topic education, portable skills, deliberation, agonism, or whatever other impacts you want.

Both sides need to explain what debates will look like under their model.

I’m definitely a good judge for “soft” T args, like T-Tactics, if the aff actually violates your interpretation.

I can be persuaded that there’s “no perms in a method debate”, but it needs to be actually warranted.

Ks

I don’t have any issues with the K – it’s where a majority of my current research is done, but I won’t fill in gaps for you.

Explanation of your theory and contextualization of links is paramount – explain why something the aff actually did is bad.

Framework is really important on both sides, and I need judge instruction on what winning your interp actually means in the context of the debate. I won’t decide on an arbitrary middle ground between interpretations unless the two interps aren’t mutually exclusive (i.e. if the aff says “we get to weigh the aff” and the neg says “we get reps links”).

K tricks (fiat illusory, floating piks, serial policy failure, etc.) need to be more than five words in the block for me to vote for them.

Honestly not a fan of reading a K with a link of omission and calling it a procedural, but if that’s your thing go for it.

Policy Affs

I appreciate specific solvency advocates and well-explained internal link stories.

You need to at least reference the impacts you want to be evaluated when extending your advantages.

Impacts that aren't "extinction" are relevant.

Case debate that’s more than impact defense is great and people should do it more – most advantages suck, so make smart analytic arguments and your speaks will thank you.

I like impact turn debates but if you’re reading something that’s patently ridiculous (i.e. warming good) it will definitely require more technical debating to win my ballot.

CPs

Not too much to say here – I like advantage counterplans, topic counterplans, case-specific counterplans, agent counterplans – do whatever you want.

I’m capable of evaluating technical process counterplan debates but I don’t have too much experience with them – if you want to go for tricky competition args or funky perms I’m going to need a little more explanation.

DAs

Read whatever you want – I’ll evaluate a topic disad the same as a rider disad.

A good DA + Case 2NR will make me smile.

I’m not a member of the cult of turns case – those arguments can be important, but debating on the substance of a disad tends to matter more in my decision.

I’m fine with politics disads, but telling a story tends to be more important with these disads than others.

Topicality vs. Policy

I don’t have a disdain for these debates like a lot of people seem to, so feel free to go for T if I'm in the back - just make sure to weigh your standards.

No strong preference for what impact you go for – this is my way of saying I haven’t drunk the “limits over everything” Kool-Aid.

Theory

I’ll vote on any theory argument, even if I personally think it's dumb – if you win the flow on new affs bad or no neg fiat, then you’ll get my ballot.

I’ll default to reject the arg not the team on non-condo counterplan theory args unless I’m given a warrant as to why I should reject the team.

I don’t default to judge kick – you need to tell me to do it (and preferably under what circumstances I should).

Conditionality: I’ll vote on it, but I don’t really have a strong preference on whether it’s good or bad in a vacuum – debate it out!

I think disclosure is an objective good so feel free to read disclosure theory, but you still need to win the arg.

In theory debates I tend to find myself focusing a lot on the interpretations that both teams forward, so make sure to make those clear if theory is an argument you want to go for.

Ethics Stuff

If clipping occurs, I will stop the debate and give the offending team an L and the offending debater a 25. I don’t follow along on the doc, so if you want to make a clipping accusation you need a recording.

For all other evidence ethics issues, unless it’s something that is specified in the tournament rules, I will default to letting the debate play out and won’t stop the round.

I feel uncomfortable administering justice with my ballot for offenses that occurred outside of the round. However, I do care about the emotional and physical well-being of students, so if you have me in the back of a round that you would really prefer not to occur due to the out-of-round actions of an opposing debater, please talk to me before the round and we can talk to tab.

Like many judges, if something occurs that is actively harmful to students in-round (i.e. use of slurs, blatant disregard of pronouns, etc.) I will stop the round and give L 25s to the offending debater/team. If something occurs in-round that you feel should be an independent voting issue but isn't normally considered egregiously offensive, I encourage you to debate it out, but please make sure to isolate 1. What exactly the other team did, 2. Why what they did was bad, 3. Why me punishing them with the ballot is good, and 4. Why me tanking their speaks is not enough.

Miscellaneous Notes

I will probably take a while to decide if the debate was close at all. I have ADHD and my thoughts often bounce around in my head like a pinball machine, so as a result I like to type out my RFD before I give it. Even if the round wasn't very close, I will still almost always take a couple of minutes to type out my decision. This is probably better for you in the long run, as if I have to give my RFD off the top of my head I often sound pretty incoherent.

Giving a rebuttal completely off the flow is awesome and will result in higher speaker points than if you didn’t.

I like jokes and appreciate bold strategic decisions.

“Have fun, try to learn something.” – Fred Sternhagen

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

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

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good

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

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans and aff "clarification"

I have seen an increase trend towards aff teams reading normative "solvency advocacy" evidence that they would *like* to be descriptive of the plan, that includes a variety of clarifications and specifications *not* in the plan text. Plans are determined by *the plan*, not by aspirational solvency evidence that includes things not in the plan. The aff does get to clarify. There is a mechanism for that. It's the plan. If the aff chooses not to clarify something in the plan, then it is determined by 1) binding cx clarification in situations where the neg does not contest that clarification and 2) normal means as determined by logical argument and descriptive evidence if the neg does choose to contest. normative solvency evidence is not a description of normal means. the decision not to clarify something in the plan is a CHOICE - as with all choices, it comes with strategic upside AND strategic baggage. if something is important for aff solvency, but not in the plan, you are running a grave risk of not being able to access it.

Risk

I think too many judges address issues as absolute “yes/no” questions. I am much more likely to think of things in terms of relative risks. That said, relative risks can be EXTREMELY small.

Counterplans

If debated equally, I am prone to thinking that counterplans which are desirable because they result in the affirmative, are, generally speaking, not competitive and make for worse debates. At a fundamental level, I don’t believe they express disagreement with the affirmative plan, which I sort of think is the whole point of debate. That said, I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans.

I lean heavily neg on all other counterplan theory questions.

If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.

Kritiks

If you are going for a kritik in front of me, the place its most likely to fall apart for me is the alt. You would be well advised to explain what your alternative does and how it is able to meaningfully accomplish its own objectives. If someone is going for a kritik against you, the easiest way to lose me is to drop a “checklist” impact calc claim: “turns case, solves case, X first, extinction inevitable, etc”

Topicality

I generally view this as question of competing interpretations. I’ve become worse over the years for “silly” topicality arguments. I’m generally easily persuaded that precision is the most important standard. For instance, if the military has a precise and official definition of “presence” it would be difficult to persuade me to disregard that for the sake of limits.

As it may come up, you deserve to know I’m probably a better judge than most for “T-significantly”. Obviously I’m not saying it’s an auto-win, but against some tiny new aff, its definitely a credible option for the neg.....my brain will judge fairly, but my heart can't get over its first love (the negative).

Planless affs

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate any argument made in front of me. No argument is ever procedurally disqualified in advance. I will judge only based on arguments made in the round, rather than arguments I may believe to be “true” that are not well defended within the debate. That said, debate is a persuasion activity, and when arguments are advanced well by both sides, you should know that my proclivities are that debate is better when the affirmative defends topical action. Again, its not impossible, and I will, as always, attempt to judge fairly based on arguments made in the round, but you deserve to know my preferences…..I don’t think they are a secret.

If you are advancing this strategy in front of me, I will say that I think teams sometimes try to “adopt” by attempting to win the “race to the middle”. In my experience this tends to help negs win that “topical version solves aff offense” more than it helps the aff win "link defense" to things like limits and fairness. My advice to you is that you are actually probably better off sticking with a more hardline position that simply impact turns topicality rather than spending time trying to minimize the “link” to the aff standards.

Rosemount High School (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (Rosemount HS, 1987-1991), 2 years CEDA (Truman State - formerly NE Missouri St 1991-1993)
Coaching/Judging Experience: 32 years judging, 18 of these actively coaching
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

Last update: 2022-11-19

--

New 2022-11-19 / Clarified 2023-12-2

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

The note about stopping the round will be only when evidence is taken out of context. In other circumstances, particularly (but not limited to) where cards are formed by taking one to four words from each of ten or more sentences, I will treat the argument as an analytic with no evidence support.

--

Yes, email chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Some details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Older Profile:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence sharing/email chains: As of 2017, I have updated my philosophy on these. I would now like to get all speech docs that are shared. Please add me to any email chain using 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