Background - I was a policy debater at Rosemount high school for four years, including being a policy debate captain my junior and senior years. While at Rosemount, I debated at both local and national circuit tournaments. I am previously worked as a coach at Farmington High School in (you guessed it) Farmington Minnesota. Presently, I'm in Moorhead at MSUM. I have judged high school tournaments before, mostly policy, but also a tiny bit of LD and like two rounds of PF.

To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. ericabaumann27@gmail.com

My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.

I use they/them pronouns.

As far as other "pre-round" questions go: Speed is fine. Tag-team CX is fine (so long as you let your partner answer and ask their own questions.) If you are Maverick, please let me know, and we can come up with the appropriate accommodations for you.

General Philosophy: I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. Just because you say something doesn't instantly make it true.

I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.

I am a fan of debaters being good human beings. I think it should go without saying, but being kind, polite and remembering that we are all people goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were also inexperienced at one point.

In addition, I am telling you now: you need to respect the pronouns of the other people in the round. I will not stand for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, fatphobia or ableism in this space. I do not tolerate arguments that are harmful, disrespectful, malicious or any argument that has a directly adverse effect on your opponents. Period.

I will treat you with respect, and as so, I expect you to treat your opponents, your partner, and your judge (me), with respect.

Also Note:

While I am a policy-maker and they aren't my favorite, I will entertain most Ks. I am good with Cap/Neolib, Security, and the like. High theory K's are more iffy, not because I think they're stupid or invalid, but simply because I have difficulty understanding them. I will listen to them, but you had better do a really really good job of explaining them to me. I never really debated high theory Kritiks, so my knowledge of them is somewhat limited. Do with that information what you will.

Now, if you do run a K, please know what you're talking about. I take issue with debaters who simply read Ks to read Ks and who have zero understanding of the authors intent or ideology. I promise you, I can usually tell. Also, please don't try to guilt me into voting for your K because it is the "right thing to do", I really really don't vibe with that. Another big pet-peeve of mine is Ks that are full of flowery language and complex rhetoric but that do nothing. I believe that, if you do run a K, your alt has to have some kind of actual (tangible?) effect. I do accept mindset shifts (as they can potentially cause an actual change) but they need to have some kind of way to prove to me that said shift will take actually take place.

If you are running any identity-politics arguments, you need to be kind.

I like debaters who give me roadmaps. Please give me a roadmap.

Bonus points if you make me laugh.

If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask. I am always here to help!

I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend and uphold your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. I competed for 4 years and have coached at 3 different schools. I started observing debate in 1987. I am also a licensed attorney.

I don't have a problem with speed, so long as your diction allows it. I understand philosophy and complex ideas. Delivery is important but I judge based on content first. Sometimes delivery can get in the way of your delivery of ideas. I will write my reasons for decision, of which one in L-D is always who showed me their side of the resolution and that their value is superior. I will use the criterion as the lenses with which to view the round/the measure by which we determine who wins the round.

In public forum, I look for argumentation and coverage of issues. Again that content is most important but delivery will have an impact too.

In both types of debate, I expect all to be professional and not rude to their opponents. I do not like snarky attitude. I expect some amount of evidence to support more than just your claims, but your ideas are the most important. Evidence gives support and credence to your ideas.

I am a former LD Debater, State Champion and National Competitor many moons ago.

I have coached and judged Public Forum and LD for the past 8 years. The last seven as Head Coach.

I am a flow judge. Speed is fine but know if it doesn’t hit my flow it didn’t happen. I will be pretty clear in my face and writing if you are losing me.

Overview: I will not do the work for you.

I require extending arguments and vetting sources. IE remember the XX card (I won’t) with out a paraphrase and impact is meaningless and a throw away.

Signpost. If you must jump around the flow, lead me there. I require more than cross apply the arguments. Why?

Narrative: This is an absolute requirement for me. Why do I prefer your offering on the resolution? I do not vote on net zero arguments. IE my evidence is better, more recent, yada yada without context. Making an argument neutral is not winning an argument. Basically, impact the TURN. I am not a technicality judge as I do not feel that is in the true spirit of Debate.

Public Forum:

I do not believe there is a paradigm in this area of debate. I expect logical links and impacts. I am open to where a debater will take the argument. That said, public forum is not Policy light. Use solvency, plans, counter plans, K’s and DisAds at your own risk. There is a reason Policy rounds are 90 minutes and PF only 45. If you can solve for poverty in 4 minutes from a few sentences of some evidence, I will personally take you to the U.N.

I do embrace/expect scope and link chains as it is logical and necessary to weigh any debate.

LD:

I will look to Framework. If you can not access impacts in the V/C clash I cannot vote for you. End of story. You cannot win an LD round with out winning the V/C clash. It is the bedrock of why we are even talking about the subject in LD and not PF or Policy. You have a unique obligation of ought or should while upholding a link to the real world.

I've been around the debate world for about 20 years, competing, coaching and judging, middle school, high school, and college tournaments. I have seen everything and can accommodate your style accordingly. My paradigm is pretty simple: have proper decorum to be respectful of everyone in the room.

Educational Background:

North Dakota State University (2014-16)- English Education

University of Jamestown (2020-2021) - Masters in Education- Curriculum and Instruction

Relevant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2017-present)- West Fargo Sheyenne High School

Etiquette:

Make sure to be respectful in your round with your opponents and be polite.

Public Forum:

Within a PF debate, I am looking at main claims, evidence, and logic being used to help a side win in PF. Use your evidence to advance your point and clearly show how that advances your side of the resolution. I take a lot into account in rebuttals. Crossfire is important in my eyes, and I want your questions in crossfire to carry over to the connection and clash you make in your rebuttals. That is the time to really show why your side wins the debate based on your use of evidence and clash.

Policy:

I look for clear argumentation between the evidence being used and how effectively you are able to attack the opponent's points and strengthen your own. I am much more content with a slower speed. I am used to argumentation and the typical debate style and format of claim/warrant/impact. At the end of the day, I will be picking the side that wins based on their better use of evidence, clash, and argumentation style.

Lincoln-Douglas:

The value/criterion framework is especially important in this debate format. Evidence of course is important in this debate format but really make sure that you are clear about how your value and criterion fit with your contentions (claims) and evidence. It is a moral debate, and I am looking to see how you can make a more reasonable moral argument based on your chosen value/criterion that advance your side of the resolution.

Speed and Delivery:

Make sure not to spread and not to speak quickly. Make sure you are understandable and clear in what you say. Your delivery matters, and if you talk too quickly, I will not understand your logic and position. Your taglines and signposting are especially important because I need to be able to follow your points and your case to help me know why your side should win the round. Make sure your links and voters are clear in the round.

Disclosure:

I am not used to disclosing when the debate is finished as it is not standard practice in North Dakota. At the national tournament, if it is expected or required, I will do it. If it is not required, I will not disclose or answer questions. I will have my thoughts and feedback written in the ballot.

Cross Examination/Crossfire:

Make sure to answer questions and ask for points of clarification politely. Make sure to use this time to help you build your rebuttals. In addition to your cross examination and/or crossfire, the rebuttals are when I really start to look at who is making the better clash and arguments.

Contact: nkurtti@west-fargo.k12.nd.us

Pronouns: He, Him

Experience: 11-year coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in LD, PF, BQ, and WSD, but minimal experience in CX.

Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments. If I didn't hear it, it can't end up on my flow. You may also want to speak up a tiny bit (especially if masked), as I'm slightly hard-of-hearing.

Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.

The only time my preconceptions will come into play is with topicality/resolution analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.

Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. If you're not clashing on interpretation, don't worry about it. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.

Cross: For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.

Things I like:

- Clear and consistent signposting

- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate

- Clear impacts that stem from Claim-Data-Warrant structures.

- Kritiks/Theory - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear. However, I come from and coach in a very traditional district, so I don't have much experience with judging these types of arguments. Give your best "...for Dummies" version of your kritik if you do go for one.

-Volume. I'm alitttttlehard of hearing, so I appreciate projection.

Things I DO NOT like:

• "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Then never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
• Evidence battles over arbitrary things ("my card is 2020 when theirs is 2017!"). There's a time/place for calling evidence into question, but I need a clear reason why something like a year matters for a particular stat (like, a recently implemented policyshould probably have the most up-to-date info, but I don't need anup-to-the-secondarticle on something John Locke believed back in the primordial ooze).

-------------

Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round as long as we're not running behind.

-Christian Novak

FLOWING:

If typing, I flow the entire round in the RFD so that teams and coaches can see how the round went. I add my thoughts in italics, so that you can see my reactions to different arguments. I'll put my biggest RFD (and the value clash) at the top of my notes.

DECISION:

1 - Debaters should carefully consider how much evidence they use. Logic can only take you so far on its own. Evidence can only do so much on its own. The two need to balance.

2 - Impacts really matter. Make sure to clearly state your impacts.

PREFERENCES:

1 - Please do not spread. I understand that students do it to fit as much information in as possible, but you risk opponents and judges not being able to track everything you say. A good argument will be about argument quality, not word quantity.

2 - I recognize that I do have a bias against disrespectful debaters. It is very important to me that debaters maintain their composure and professionalism through the entire round. Competitors are future leaders and need to be able to set a good example for those around them.

3 - Meld values into your contentions and come back to that! Please balance the value clash with the contentions. I'll use the wining value to weigh both teams' contentions.