Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Judge 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 been 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.

Updated 1/6/24, pre MSHSL State tournament (post sections). Have some thoughts from sections at the top of the PF/LD paradigm.

ImpactInstituteDebate.com

Background:

Graduated Bloomington Jefferson HS in 2012. Did Policy/Extemp and a little Congress. Wasn't great at any of these events.

Coach of the Bloomington Debate team 2018-present. Our program is now exclusively a Congress team, we did some PF in 18/19. Judge mostly Congress, but get ~12 assorted PF/LD rounds a year.

I work in finance doing institutional asset management when I'm not coaching. I also play and coach ultimate frisbee in my free time and watch any and all sports, do with that what you will.

Disclosure:

I love to discuss specific feedback, either email (below) or find me after a round. Email after a tournament (Congress especially) is great if you want more feedback. I like to disclose post round when allowed, tho likely will NOT at State this year unless both teams read this and ask for disclosure. That said, will likely give you some feedback I hope to help you if it's not the last round of the day.

Two important rules (all formats)

1. Be respectful. If you say anything offensive (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.) I will not hesitate to give you the auto-loss or the worst score I can.

2. I'm always down to give you more feedback, email is great (arthurpaulharris at gmail dot com) or just come find me at a tournament. I will answer any question about something on any ballot I put out.

Short Paradigm [PF/LD/CX] (update 1/6/24):

If there's an email chain pls add me, email above. The debate will be best if you do what you do best - I'll do my best to adapt to you.

For PF/LD: I will vote on what's on the flow (or do my absolute best to). I flow on paper but my pen is still decently fast (see below about speed). I'm probably dead center on tech vs truth if you think those are contradictory, but if you want this to be circuit LD/PF and it's a MSHSL tournament, you'll be disappointed.

PF people - If you need a shortcut for my paradigm I align with Christian Vasquez's paradigm almost exactly (I assume y'all will be more familiar as he's gotta be like 5x the judge/debate educator I am). If you want to read actual coherent thoughts on PF debate, check that out, it's probably the paradigm that's helped me (re)form my thoughts on PF in the last year.

Section 230 thought from 5 rounds at sections (idk if this will be helpful): Unlike most of the judging pool I'm not a lawyer (so am more susceptible to being bamboozled by lies/debate logic about the legal system) - even so, I think that having a good understanding and then explanation of what 230 does (and doesn't!) do would go a LONG way to establishing ground for both sides.

PF/LD thoughts:

1. Your speed is probably fine, your clarity probably needs work, you should def slow down for anything you want on my ballot at the end of the round and an argument made in your first speech needs to be extended in your other speeches to weigh at the end of the round. PF PEOPLE - I used to have a section about how y'all read your tags/cards backwards but I think I figured you out - I still would prefer if you made my life easier and didn't read everything at one speed, but increasingly that feels like a battle I will not win.

2. I def don't know any of your topic specific jargon and I almost certainly don't know any of the conventions/norms/customs of your event. That means - you probably want to explain an acronym if it'll be important and you'll want to have clear explanations and impacts to your "speed bad" theory or whatever event specific theory (disclosure theory I guess?) you read.

3. Prep time abuse is bad. If it becomes an issue in round I will insert myself and start keeping the prep time myself. When you are out of time you have about 5 seconds to start talking before I get annoyed at you wasting time or stealing prep. Also - I've noticed a huge increase in rebuttals that go 4:10 or summaries that go 3:08. I will put my pen down at the end of the allowed speaking time, you're welcome to keep talking but none of it is going on the flow. I know it seems marginal (and that you don't have enough time as is), but those extensions net you 3-5% extra speech time and someone (probably the judge!) needs to hold the line.

4. I assume that when you read evidence you are reading directly from the source. If you are paraphrasing (apparently allowed in PF) you need to make it clear you are doing so (but also just don't do that). Failure to provide the evidence you paraphrased to the other team in a reasonable amount of time when asked is grounds for a loss. If you set up ev sharing, you should 100% send all cards before you start speaking. This will save time and make everyone's life easier, please just do it this way.

5. I think teams have been most frustrated with my decision when they're read more cards/arguments but didn't spend much time in the last rebuttals/final focus explaining the role of my ballot and weighing. Condensing, weighing and explanation will get you a lot of wins in front of me. Smart cross applications and analytics will also get you a long way in front of me. Additionally, specificity of uniqueness/link and impact scenario will go a long way in front of me, and teams that read a specific scenario have beaten teams reading generic turns quite frequently.

Thoughts on things in debates (not sure how many of these are in LD, pretty sure very few are in PF):

Ks: I'm not a bright or well read individual. I understand the basics of what I believe y'all refer to now as "soft left" Ks, but my lack of substantial liberal arts education means I'm not familiar with anything more critical than them. I will do my best to judge you though, however on kritiks as with any other arguments I need to hear a clear, specific link, a reason the kritik is competitive and solvency. You can try to convince me some or none of these are needed, but it'll be an uphill battle for you. LD people - I think (think) this means that if you read a consequentialist framework I'll track you, if you go for something ontological I'm going to need some extra hand holding (rephrasing your authors will go a LONG way). If this sentence makes no sense, you see what I'm trying to say re: me being not the smartest :)

CPs: Usually fine. I think I prefer that they're not topical, but can be persuaded otherwise. Need to be competitive. Perms aren't an advocacy but I also find the perm does a good job of proving non-competitiveness most of the time.

Theory: Theory with a voter of dropping a team: really high bar, need to prove in round abuse. Theory to drop an arg: Somewhat lower bar, would still like in round abuse. As I get older I find reasonableness to be a better standard for judging theory. Your theory probably needs an interpretation, a violation, an impact and a voter. I've come to understand there's a subset of theory in PF called "tricks" - if your trick doesn't meet this burden I probably don't care for it. In PF, if you want to read "Topicality", I think the most reasonable voter is to drop any argument that isn't topical. You still need to run an interpretation, have a violation and explain what the impacts of non-topicality are. I can be persuaded you should win on T if your opponent reads non-topical advantages, but the burden is high on you to win the impact/voter level.

DAs: Obviously these are fine, need a clear uniqueness and link story. The more complicated your link chain the higher your explanatory burden will be and the lower my bar to evaluating defense for the other team will be.

Short Paradigm [Congress] :

1. Debating makes up ~80% of your rank in front of me, speaking is ~20%. Argument quality is an important sub-element of debating (note - creative link chains are acceptable, you just need to explain them well). I am a human though, so masterful rhetorical skill can get you a good rank if you have it.

2. POs - I am PO friendly in that every PO starts somewhere in the top half of my ballot (new policy for 22/23 season). I track P/R for speeches/questions. If you make no P/R mistakes (or correct yourself quickly if you do), call speakers/questioners about as fast as I can track, have a handle on the rules for motions/votes and keep the round running smoothly, you'll probably do well. You can find detailed examples of how to move up/down as the PO in my extended paradigm linked below.I think the PO leniency has bent too far in favor of POs, so mistakes in P/R will start to carry harsher penalties in Varsity/Open rounds.

3. If there is a broken cycle (i.e. no one stands for aff so there are two negs in a row or vice versa) - giving that broken cycle speech is almost always a surefire way to move to the bottom of my ballot. You need to bring new refutation to the table and it needs to be a clincher for the round. You're almost always better off moving previous question and taking your P/R to the next bill - this continues to be an issue with little movement in the right direction...maybe 24-25 season we give this some more thought?

4. I am probably one of the more friendly judges for you if you like to run critical theory arguments. I can't say this will ever be a good strat for you because I'm never your only judge, but if shooters gotta shoot - let it be you.

5. Please remember to have fun. If you aren't having fun there's really no point to any of this.

Assorted Musing/Long Paradigm:

For the 22/23 Congress season, some observations:

I think the bias in the aff/neg split has firmly entrenched itself on the neg - this is probably due to a) poor bill quality in MN and b) assuming an authorship means prepping a 1N is more "guaranteed". That said, I think going aff can be very advantageous this year, especially given the quality of neg args that folks seem to be running against legislation that is, big picture, a *good* idea.

At locals: The trend of putting every bill authored by someone in the chamber on the agenda needs to stop. The legislation people are putting out in MN is NOT good enough for authorship to guarantee the floor, and because y'all refuse to move on at an appropriate time these bills kill speech ranks for ~2-3 cycles of debaters. I promise you you will not lose ranks in front of me for being "mean" and voting against dockets that have bad bills on them just because someone wrote that bill - in fact if I observe you lobbying against poorly researched and/or "shallow cycle" bills in the face of opposition from folks "just trying to be nice" I'll probably be more inclined to use that as a tiebreaker to move you up in rank for recognizing that debate takes precedence.

PO bias seems to have bent back in favor of POs - in order to compensate I will have a much stricter tolerance for PO mistakes on precedence/recency for both questioners and speakers. Additionally I will start to judge PO speed on a stricter scale when it comes to selecting questioners in particular (obviously accounting for debaters that may take too long to stand or stand mid questioning).

Also for POs - please cut down on the words you say. We don't need to know how long the speech was. We know and TRUST YOU to know how many questioning blocks are next. We only need to know if aff or neg is next speaker, not which number it is. If you really need to thank everyone, please do it off the clock after the round.

I used to have a whole lot of words here about the way I think about and judge debate. I probably won't update it a lot but I probably won't change it a lot either. I've moved that to a google doc which you can view here. Everything is still up to date and accurate as of December 2021.

Extemp Speaking Paradigm, updated pre MN State Tournament 2023:

How to win the ballot, Extemp Speaking:

1. Answer the question.

1. Actually answer the question that was asked, not a variant or similar question. At state this is going to pick trickier than usual (probably), because the questions tend to be multifaceted.

2. Usually, the easiest way to make sure you answer the question is to have a thesis, instead of just a yes/no. You are usually then forced to make sure your subpoints of analysis always link back to the thesis, which in turn answers the question.

3. Whether or not you use a thesis, you want to spend time explaining why your subpoints reinforce or prove your thesis correct, and if you do have a thesis you need to explain why it is the best answer to the question

2. Analysis

1. Depth > breadth - that is, I’d rather see you really focus on proving the logic behind a single claim per sub point rather than having a ton of different points of analysis or facts crammed into two minutes.

1. For example, if your first subpoint is that the ECB raising rates would but European banks under pressure, my preference is for you to explain a theory for why and develop out a clear picture of how and why banks would be in trouble in a rising rate environment (using maybe 1 or 2 sources), rather than telling me that 4 different sources show that 4 different European banks said they’d have trouble with an asset-liability mismatch if the ECB raises rates.

2. Another way of saying this is - I want you to demonstrate that you have an advanced understanding of what you’re talking about, rather than that you were able to read a bunch of headlines. Whatever you can do to give me that impression, do that.

2. Source quality - this is one area of “flash” that I can be impressed - deploying underutilized sources (and explaining why they are great sources) is something I personally really like.

1. Even if you don’t have any books or papers or super underutilized sources to run out, using higher quality sources of common usage (i.e. think tanks and analysis pieces) instead of common news sources (i.e. the NYT, Reuters, etc) is usually good.

3. Delivery - I am pretty firmly in camp analysis > delivery, but am probably an outlier on any panel in this regard. If its the State final you’re all going to be delivering at a level that clears my threshold, so really the key is to not get mentally down on yourself if you stumble or aren’t as smooth as you’d like early on because I don’t care about that at all.

4. Probably the best way to think about winning a round is to treat answering the question like you’re engaging in a debate vs an imaginary opponent who is trying to disprove your answer to the question. This will force you to:

1. Defend the veracity of your claims, which in turn will make them more persuasive

2. Will likely lead you to conditioning your claims with “even-if” statements, which again will increase their persuasiveness

3. Probably means you’re presenting a more nuanced picture of the world, which is good.

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 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.

I am a teacher and coach at Eastview High School (MN) - the 2023-2024 school year is my 21st year coaching and my 25th year involved in speech and debate. Full disclosure: I don't judge a whole lot. I'm usually doing other things at tournaments. But: I do actively coach, I enjoy judging almost every time I get to, and I like to think I'm fairly predictable in terms of what I look for and prefer.

You can ask me questions in round if you wish.

PF: I can "handle speed", though I don't know that I've seen many fast PF debaters. I have seen many blippy PF debaters. To me, speed does not equate to 40 cards, of varying word count, that are blippily extended. I very much prefer depth and extension of ideas than extension of tons of author names that all don't say a whole lot.

Congress: What I most value in this event include:

(1) Debating! Pre-scripted speeches (with the exception of an authorship) don't do much for me. Each speech should be somehow moving the debate forward; when speeches are merely read, they don't have that power. This also means that rehashing of points should be avoided. If you do discuss arguments previously made, what can you do to move them forward and develop a deeper line of analysis? Some type of impact analysis, new weighing, perhaps a new facet of the problem? Just repeating argumentation doesn't help move the debate forward.

(2) Thesis-driven speeches. I like to see a clear framework, clear organization, and a coherent structure that all supports some major theme within your speech. A hodgepodge of impacts and arguments that feel unrelated don't have as much weight as a speech that has a central, core idea behind it.

(3) Evidence. Moreso than an author name, I do like to hear credentials and dates. Not only that, evidence comparisons are so often key to the debate - why should I prefer your evidence over other evidence that has been heard so far in the round?

(4) Diversity of Cycle Position. If I hear a debater give me four first negative speeches, I don't feel like I get a true sense of the skill of that debater. Preferably, I'd like to hear each entry speak in different parts of the cycle. If you give me a first negative, maybe work to have a speech near the end of the debate to show my your crystallization skills. If you have a mid-cycle speech, maybe work to have a constructive speech next time. Obviously, your precedence and recency determines some of your order, but work to showcase differing skills in the round.

(5) Cross-x is important, but not everything. Speeches carry far more weight than questions. I do listen to questions, take into account your chamber activity, and really enjoy hearing c-x's that bring up holes in a position (or expertly bolster a position). But too often, I see debaters hurting themselves in c-x more than helping themselves. Overly aggressive, snippy, demeaning c-x's just don't help build a debater's eithos. Two competent debaters can have a good discourse without resulting to being mean. In c-x, I like to get proof that you truly "know your stuff" - that you're researched, have a handle on the topic, and didn't just read some brief that was given to you.

(6) Knowledge. The very best debaters, in my opinions, are the ones that have a fundamental understanding of the issues and can communicate them in a clear, impactful way. That simple statement is really hard to master. It is fairly clear when a person is well read, can respond to arguments with substantiated claims on fly, and can think on a deeper level. Show me your mastery of the content and you will be rewarded.

Finally, (7) Just Debate. I enjoy Congress - but when debate devolves into games and tricks designed to disadvantage any given speaker, I get frustrated. In my humble opinion, the very best debaters work to get their wins through mastery of the content, clear argumentation, and a firm but kind debating style. Resorting to games is beneath that. Have fun, for sure, but don't do so at the expense of others.

I am currently the Assistant Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. I coach Congressional Debate and Public Forum.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Congressional Debate:

-Congressional Debate is not a Speech event; I am looking for argumentation skills that further the debate.

-I encourage signposting, great intros, and a quick summary conclusion. When appropriate, a joke or pun is always welcome.

-I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal.

-I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have importance to their constituents back home.

-The authorship or sponsorship speech should address the status quo, lay out the problem(s), and explain with specificity how the legislation solves it. The first con should be equally as strong. Second-round speeches and beyond should advance the debate – offer something new, clarify something that has been said, or refute something proffered.

-If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch, crystallization speech is in order and very much enjoyed when done well.

-One amazing speech will always beat out three mediocre speeches.

-No same-sided questions...it does not further debate.

-Don't break the cycle of debate; either flip sides or give a speech on another piece of legislation.

-Refrain from the three Rs: Repeat, Rehash, Recycle.

-Make your arguments stronger, not louder.

-I expect you to treat your colleagues with respect and civility. Shouting, pointing fingers (literally), and being downright rude in questioning will drop you quickly. I like questions that further debate and shore up the arguments. I frown upon unsportsmanlike shenanigans – no “gotcha” or snarky questions. My frown will extend to chamber rankings.

Presiding Officer: Please consider the job of PO ONLY if you are comfortable with Parliamentary Procedure, keeping track of recency and precedence, and running a controlled chamber. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. I do not mind some levity, but this is also a competition. As PO, please explain your gaveling procedure, your understanding of recency and precedence, and how you call on representatives for questioning. Please do not call for "orders of the day" in front of me. Y'all are using it wrong to give your stats from the round.

Public Forum Debate:

>>>SPEED: I am a Coach, but I still can't write as fast as I hear you. You never said if it does not make it to my flow.

Clear signposting.

Off-time roadmaps work for me.

I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Don't cherry-pick your evidence.

I want to hear debate on the NSDA PF resolution only. Run anything else at your own risk!

I really need narrative and great warranting - please extend them through the flow. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them. Tell me your story.

Are you still terminally impacting to Nuclear War in 2023? If so, use caution because the probability is about 1%. I know that, you know that, and the academic literature states that.

I prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

Collapse as necessary to keep the debate sharp.

Please weigh in summary and final focus. If you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both the summary and final focus. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the round.

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.