MSHSL Section 5 Debate Tournament
2023 — Eagan, MN/US
Policy Judge Pool Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideExperience: I debated for Eagan High School for 4 years and I am in my fourth year of coaching policy debate for them. I have debated primarily in policy debate, but I was also a congress debater for a year and a half and dabbled in Big Questions. I have been judging in some capacity for 7 years starting my freshman year primarily for the MNUDL.
Topicality: I believe topicality is an important question in the debate space and will never dismiss it as an arbitrary argument. However, I am also very open to arguments that prove why topicality is not necessary for the aff or is actually a detriment to debate. If proved properly and argued well I will totally buy that some affs should be untopical and that topicality is actually a detriment to debate in specific circumstances.
K's: I ran some k's and debated a lot of them and have read a lot of critical literature in college, but I have a high-ish bar for K's. Particularly on the alt, without an alt, k's are vague DA's, so run them that way, or actually explain the alt to me. I think I've heard maybe 1 alt ever that actually make sense so I'm not expecting to buy what you say. That being said, if the other team fumbles it, I'll vote for you. I like the theory base for k's, but I often don't think they actually make sense in a debate context.
Speed: I don't like speed debate, to be 100% honest. I debated somewhat fast and I can hear fast, but I've never liked it. I think it is one of the largest contributors to the death of policy debate and the reduction in the quality of arguments. It's made 80% of rounds I see blippy and underdeveloped on both sides where just the sheer volume of arguments is preferred to the quality, specificity or emphasis of positions. Everyone just scrolls down an email and no one has to listen to speeches. Also, I will not / can not catch every single little analytical you spew onto the flow when you're spreading 7 words a second and any judge that claims they can is lying. If you want me to pay attention to something specific, SLOW DOWN and EXPLAIN instead of making your tags 5 words long and reading 5 point blocks full of jargon and hyphens. I am a human being, not a robot, I can't flow everything perfectly, you'll need to accommodate the sad reality that I am not, unfortunately, a literal flowing machine.
How I Judge: Generally, I will vote on "tech" over "truth". Though the macro level is also vitally important to a debate, I wholeheartedly believe that the judge should never do any work for the debaters. I will only take what arguments and analysis the debaters provide in the round, I will not allow my personal opinion or judgment of "common sense" to rewrite what was actually said. This means that I highly value drops and extensions in round. However, I will NOT evaluate an argument if I don't hear it or if it is just as blippy as every other argument in the speech. If you want me to take an argument more seriously than others it is your responsibility to blow that up (which means, yes, maybe you should slow down to show emphasis). Pointing out when things are dropped and continuing to extend impacts and voters is crucial, but you have to actually extend it IN DETAIL. I believe at the end of the day that debate is an educational game to teach knowledge and skills. The point is to have fun, think critically and help everyone involved to learn more about the world we live in.
Framing: I try to be open minded about framing and the weighing you give me in the round and as described above, I'll take what you give me. That being said, I don't like extinction scenarios and in general I don't like crappy internal link chains that get you to extinction or other extreme scenarios with little to no real explanation. I think probability, overall, makes the most sense, and I don't think terminal impacts have some exalted place above structural ones. Usually, these link chains become trash earlier, like "econ collapse = global war" with little to no explanation. Realistically, most teams don't actually contest these links, but I like it when teams do. Really press these teams on how we're getting to literal extinction from one plan in congress, you know? If you told that to anyone outside of debate, they'd laugh at you. Convince me why I shouldn't be laughing too.
Other Things: Don't expect me (or anyone for that matter) to know the complex intricacies of your k rhetoric or obscure policy action, explain your evidence like you would to a non-debater. This will improve clarity, accuracy and quality of debate for everyone in the round (and maybe up your speaker points as well). I do not know all of the specific positions and I'm no expert on the topic knowledge. It will take me longer to grasp things you explain less, that might mean I don't fully understand something you were saying by the end of the round. It is your burden to make sure that doesn't happen, like I said above, I'm not a calculating super-computer, I'm a fallible human, please treat me like one.
Evidence/Flowing: I would like to be on the email chain for convenience's sake, but I'll try not to just read along during your speech. More importantly, I don't want to have to read along during your speech. It is your responsibility to speak clearly enough for me to hear and write down your argument. I'll only look at the evidence in depth if told to.
Email: joshgroven@hotmail.com
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
I am a law student. My background is in extemp. I will vote for the team that does the better debating but I do not prefer K affs. If you run a K aff, you need to be both coherent within the round and to the author's actual nondebate meaning. Additionally, your argument needs to be consistent within itself. If I do not understand the individual pieces of your kritik, I am not going to vote for it.
Evidence needs to actual say what it is tagged as and needs to be coherent. I read evidence.
I view my role as a judge to only be able to affirm a plan that is within the resolution. As a result, if the plan text is not within the resolution, I do not view myself as having the authority to affirm it. This means that T is not a reverse voter, T is not a turn, T is not a link to a K, and there arenot disadvantages to T. On a T debate, I expect a debate on the definitions of words, and the standards by which I should evaluate the definitions. I am more than happy to vote on T and will do so, but teams should be prepared to debate T as a procedural issue absent from the material issues of the round.
Teams should also diversify their impacts. If an affirmative claims to solve for 4 different human extinctions, I am going to be incredibly skeptical. Teams should also do impact calculus (in general but especially in front of me). Why does your impact matter more? How should I weigh competing impacts?
Please include me on email chains. Email to use: aaronlutz3939@gmail.com
I am happy to answer any questions before the round.
**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.