MSHSL Section 5 Debate Tournament
2023 — Eagan, MN/US
PF Judge Pool Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideJudge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.
I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.
I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.
Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.
Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.
Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.
Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.
Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.
Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.
My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.
Hello! Here's a little about my background: I started coaching debate in 2003 at Forest Lake. I coached LD, Public Forum, and Congress there until 2018. I took a short break, and started coaching at Roseville in 2023. I have coached teams at MSHSL State in all four categories of debate, and national competitors in LD and Congress. Outside of coaching, I am a dedicated English, writing, and communication teacher. I come to this activity as an educator first and foremost.
The most important thing, before all else, is that debaters are respectful. Your opponent, like everyone here, probably got up early to do the one thing Americans, as a whole, fear more than death: speak in front of people and be judged. You are all doing amazing things, whether you win national awards or win rarely. Be kind and engage in good faith.I'm very sensitive to this - if you seem like you are dismissive, rude, condescending, arrogant, or disdainful, you will get very low speaker points at a minimum.
Most people would probably say I am a more traditional judge: I like to see a framework and a cohesive case that has clear contentions, well cut evidence, and strong impacts that connect to an overall case concept. The best debaters I have seen woven a lucid, logical, and internally consistent story of how the world should work in relation to the resolution, and responded to the opposition from that perspective.
Likes:
- Framework - I am fine with Value Criterion or just a clear standard, but I want to know what lens you are using to consider the resolution or the arguments at hand.
- Context, explanation, and impacts with evidence
- Signposting that doesn't just use author's last names (they are harder to hear/flow accurately because they are not typical words we use and hear all the time)
- Cross examination that is directed and strategic
- Rebuttal and refutation that is organized, easy to follow, internally consistent, and contrasts the opposing sides to show how your side is stronger
- Voting issues (crystallization) - at the end, I expect debaters to break down the round and show me what the most important issues in the round are, and why you have presented the more convincing argument. Ask for my vote!
- Clear speaking and communication - speed is okay as long as you are clear and pronounce your words so I can hear them, especially names since they are not typical words that we can understand from context
- Friendliness and a sense of humor - let's have fun!
Dislikes:
- Lack of contentions- a word isn't an argument; what are you trying to argue? Don't just read cards at me, tell me what all this stuff means.
- Lack of context, explanation, or impacts - don't make me try to guess what your trying to argue or make the connections for you. That's your job.
- Asking me to vote based on a single card or a specific statistic out of a specific card. I am looking at the round like this: on balance, whoever debated better and was more persuasive/convincing (within the rules of debate) should win the round. I don't like to try to add up numbers in the end of a round. Don't ask me to do math.
- Using silly portmanteaus, abbreviations, and acronymy: Obviously saying "ICC" instead of International Criminal Court makes sense because it is a typical abbreviation. However, "squo," "MSV," and others that solely exist in debate world and nowhere else are jarring and distracting to me. If it's not something that is used regularly, you only use it if you explain what it is first. Honestly, if your speech doesn't have enough room for two extra syllables (status quo), it's probably too packed anyway.
- Reading super fast, then having significant left at the end of your speech. If you are going to make me work hard flowing, I expect it to be worth it.
- Talking so fast that you can't breathe or control your saliva. I'm fine with speed, but be realistic.
- Disrespecting your opponent's knowledge base or skill - it's okay if you are a stronger debater and you win graciously, but saying things like "they COLD DROPPED this, it's SUPER IMPORTANT, ..." is unnecessary, and honestly more syllables than just "this was dropped, please extend... because..."
- Demanding my vote or telling me what to do. Ask me to extend things; ask for my vote.
- Any arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist and/or discriminatory in these ways will be rejected on face; I may stop the round and/or intervene depending on the situation. Note: this is a basic expectation; I've only ever had to do this once in 21 years.
I don't typically disclose unless it's a requirement of the tournament, so don't expect me to. I may give you some tips or explain something, but that's about it for post-round discussion.
I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.
When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.
I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the ev presented by their opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.
The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.
If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.
When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.
I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.
I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.
PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.
I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.
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.
Background: Debate and Speech Coach at East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. Retired Attorney.
Regarding PF:
-Your speed needs to be conversational; if I cannot get it on my flow, you did not say it.
-I need to hear excellent warranting and narrative - I do not prep the PF topic, so make it make sense.
-I consider myself a truth-over-tech judge.
-I like quantifiable impacts.
-Off-time roadmaps are good for me.
-Voters and weighing are key to my ballot.
-Make the Summary and Final Focus what they should be, not a Rebuttal 2.0.
What I am looking for in Congressional Debate:
-an introduction to your speech, a roadmap, and some signposting/transitions are helpful
-arguments that include the necessary evidence to support them
-citations that give me enough information to find them, if needed
-the authorship/sponsorship speech that is polished and should include the status quo, the problem in the status quo, and how your bill solves
-speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech should include refutation and clash with previous speakers - this is debate, not oratory
-questioning should further debate, so favorable or same-sided questions should be avoided
-if you are giving a mid- to late-round speech and do not include refutation, you will rank poorly in front of me
-avoid talking over each other and snark during questioning
-no rehashing of previous points, please
-breaking the cycle of debate is a risky move in front of me; flipping sides or saving your recency for the next piece of legislation is preferable
What I am looking for in a Presiding Officer:
-EFFICEINCY! The more wordy you are, the more your score goes down
-you should announce your procedures thoroughly at the very beginning
-you are not required to offer an electronic precedence and recency spreadsheet. The onus is on the debaters in the chamber to flow the debate and keep track of the P & R
-No auctioneering is needed. Call for a speech, seeing none, call for the next.
-a PO is there to allow the most debate to happen. Narrating the entire round with extra words fails to meet this objective.
-a PO should be able to get through about 12 speeches in an hour. Make that your goal.
-unless the Tournament says otherwise, the NSDA has no rule against breaking cycle and the number of same-sided speeches that can occur. You do not need to admonish the chamber each time it happens.
-You should not call for “Orders of the Day” unless you have a tabled piece of legislation you left on the table. “Orders of the Day” is not a time to state how many speeches and questions the chamber got through. Check out Robert’s Rules of Order if you are curious.
-DO NOT SAY: “Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for a 1-minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." INSTEAD SAY: “Speech time 3:09. Questioners, please indicate.”
The value of debate in the real world is in how debate can help us resolve disagreements, seek the truth, or persuade others. The more you debate in a manner that can achieve those ends the higher I will score your debating and the more likely you are to win.
I do not want to see a whole lot of jargon, especially if it ends up excluding your opponents from the debate. You are welcome and encouraged to use the most common debate terms like warrant, impact, and link, but I wouldn't go much further than that. Say what you mean, especially if you are in Public Forum.
I do want to see you make complete arguments, including explicit warrants and detailed impacts. Extend all arguments. In LD, give me a criterion and apply it. In PF, give me a link to some value for each argument.
I strongly dislike off-time roadmaps. If you are saying something you expect me to listen to then it should be included within the time limits. I do want to see clear roadmaps and signposting, but make sure they are within the time limits.
Have an attention getter if you want my full attention.
I do not want to hear anyone ask "As first speaker may I have the first question?" or anything along those lines in crossfire. The rules provide for the first speaker to have the first question so it isn't a matter of politeness to ask, it's either a failure to understand the rules or just a waste of time. You wouldn't ask if the affirmative could have the first speech, so why ask if they get the first question?
I place a premium on civility and respect, which I evaluate based primarily on body language, word choice, and tone.
I am always ready; you never have to ask me, and I would prefer you did not. Even if I am flowing and not looking at you, I am ready to go and you should just start. If I ever am not ready I will ask you to stop and you will not be docked any points--if anything, you would receive a point bonus based on respecting my paradigm.
By the same token, I do not want you to waste time asking if your partner is ready (if they are not you should be using prep time) or if your opponents are ready (if they are not they should be using prep time).
I only disclose if the tournament requests that judges do so or if I need to make comments about behavioral issues.
I don't mind speed but I've never seen spreading help. I like quality over quantity and analysis over cards.