MNUDL Middle School Northern Conference Tournament 2
2023 — Centennial MS, Lino Lakes, MN/US
Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Please note if I do not respond immediately just continue to email till, I respond. I promise you are not bothering me. I assist several professors and so sometimes it will get buried fast. Please tell me which tournament and what round and any specific questions you have for me.
I have a Finance degree. I did a lot of classes in international relations and business, so I have a solid base knowledge on the world economy.
I did High School Policy and recently have been helping a few schools in Congress and LD. I did not debate in college which means all of my thoughts are from before the pandemic so take it with a grain of salt.
I am a pretty expressive judge. You will know how I feel about certain arguments.
I am an experienced Parli judging at TOC level tournaments. I do evaluate P.O’s in my breaks for the round. I do value the round being moved fast and efficiently. Typically, I allow 1-2 mistakes per hour of debate. I am more lenient at the Novice and Middle School level.
If the chamber constantly breaks cycle this will affect the entire chamber, you should be prepped on both sides of bills. We are asking you to roleplay which may mean defending positions you are not comfortable or do not align with your personal beliefs.
Does your speech flow?
Is your hook generic?
Do you read off a paper?
Are you robotic?
Are you repeating points already made?
Do you move around the room?
Do your points make sense? (If you are doing a company takeover does your bill actually allocate enough funds)
TOC BID SPECIFIC:
Please show me that you want it. I expect you to be prepped for both sides of the debate. Please expect me to evaluate every part of your speech as given above. I will evaluate P.O’s but at this level I expect you to be nearly flawless in the round.
My favorite hook has been “In an effort to keep Parli Martin’s blood pressure down.” I love a little banter with your judges.
Trust me, this is just as awkward for you as it is for me.
My debaters will tell you that I am not nearly as scary as I seem.
I don’t swing one way or another on mechanics or types of arguments. I dislike poor argumentation.
I did mostly K's during high school, that being said I will vote on topicality as an apriori.
Please for my sanity have an alt that is clear, if it is from an unreliable source I will question the validity of the alt.
If you are going to run a theory argument there has to be in round abuse or at the very minimum a clear link to the ballot.
For speaker points, I care less about word economics and more on if you can get your point across. If that takes you 4 ummm, and a few pauses or if you can get it first time thats fine.
Currently coaching for Central
Hi! I’m Cayden, I use they/them pronouns, please use them! I’m generally quite a neutral judge however I think that making debate an inclusive and fun space outweighs all else.
I have bad hearing so please speak extra loud and if it’s online, make sure your mic is clear!
This note comes before anything in this paradigm and its at the top for a reason: Please just run whatever you feel best running. I would rather have you run something I’m generally not partial to well than something I like badly. The best debates come from people running what they know best, so do that!
- What I said above about having fun in debates applies even more here, I coached MS and currently coach novice and truly just want it to be a positive experience for everyone involved!
- Read a plan text! If you are going for a CP or K, read the CP text or alternative!
- At the end of the day, my role in debate is to help you learn and grow, I am more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, please feel free to email me if you think of questions after the tournament is over!!!
Pls no death good args in front of me. Also if your args have TW/CW let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech.
Judge Instruction-I think debate has lost a lot of what I think is one of the most important pieces which is the story of arguments. I am down for the tech level, but you are much more likely to get my vote with good judge instruction and consistently explaining the story of your args and how they shake out by the end of the round.
Spreading- Clarity comes first. I will be on the speech doc for the ease of things however I will not flow off the speech doc. If I cannot understand your tag, date, and author I will flow it as an analytic. I firmly believe that policy debate would be a far better activity without spreading, that isn’t to say I see no purpose in spreading, I absolutely understand it, but I do think it is bad for our education. If you are reading this and worried I won't be able to understand you, just slow down on your tags a little bit for me and we are good, I can flow you I pinky promise. I will also call clear three times for each person after that, if I can't understand you I won't flow it.
In round non debate stuff: I debated online for a year+ so trust me, I fully understand that “normal” policy debate ethos has gone out of the window, that being said, I would prefer if you do whatever you can so I can hear/understand you better as my hearing is not great. I also will not tolerate being explicitly rude in round. I was a very assertive debater myself so I’m not saying don’t be assertive, but don’t just be flat out rude, especially during cross. You will be getting your speaks docked. As stated earlier, debate should be fun and inclusive and I think that this is an important part of it.
Tech v Truth- Not gonna lie, unsure who is like a true truth>tech judge these days. I'm securely tech>truth, only spot that I think is a little bit closer towards truth is on bad IL chains on DAs. I also weigh arguments as new the first time they have a warrant, analytic or ev.
T- I am down for T however my standards on T impacts are higher than the avergae natcir and lower than localcir. I default to models but am also more likely to happily pull the trigger on in round abuse.
Ks- I ran Ks on both sides and love them over most policy arguments however I’m not going to try and claim to understand your complex literature I just have not read. If you are able to explain your K literature well to me I would love to see you run your K, however if you can’t, I’m not going to try and do the work for you. I also probably buy most no link args over bad link args BUT I do tend to give alt solvency a fair bit of leniency. I am down for you link you lose good or bad debates, down for most K args, not a fan of baudy or psycho but I'll judge em fairly I just won't be the happiest camper.
PTX DAs- I kinda hate them but I totally get that they are a very legit strat especially on the topic, but please be able to defend why PC is real.
CPs- Go for it. I ran a lot of these and see they have a place, that being said I’m also very open to hearing arguments against that. I think that on perm theory I’m pretty deadset neutral but I default to test of competition (idk any judges who don't anymore). I can also be convinced that X type of CPs are bad for debate if given good education and fairness arguments.
K Affs- I ran one, go crazy, love a good planless debate, love a good framework debate. Some of my favorite rounds have been performance style but also some of my least favorite have been bad K affs. I am probably not your best judge for a fairness bad round. Also, I have only ever heard one good death of debate argument and I think nearly all of the rest are not worth it in front of me.
FWK- I go through this first if its present and it will never be a "wash" for me. I default to a policy maker but also ran basically every fw under the sun so I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Please slow down on this once you get to the rebuttals and I love techy cross applications of other flows to fw.
Condo!- I go into each round deadset neutral on condo. I've seen teams win condo v a 1 off conditional advocacy and teams win v condo running 10+ conditional advocacies. I probably am truly deadset neutral on my own opinions around the 6 condo advocacies line, slightly more likely to vote aff once you hit the 10 off mark. All of this can be 100% changed by the round in front of me (obviously) just know these are the mental lines I think I have.
Theory in general- I am sad to say I feel like I need to add this because of Central. I will vote on most theory args, I defualt to condo good but that can be easily changed in round. I also think in round abuse args are always going to be the strongest but models of debate is fine too. At the end of the day though, just because I will vote on it doesn't make me happy to and your speaks will reflect that.
Also, unless the tournament rulebook specifies disclosure, please don't run disclosure theory in front of me, I believe that if you can win on disclosure theory, you can win on something else.
Let's all have a good time and learn some stuff. Do what you feel you are best at and try to emphasize clash. Specific questions can be directed here: email@example.com
Very important note: If you and your partner choose to do tag team debate then you must "tag in" if you want to ask a question and "tag out" when you're done asking questions. How you tag is up to you (high five, fist bump, etc.), but you must do it.
I've been in debate for 19 years - have debated, judged, and coached at regional and national tournaments in high school and used to compete for the UofMN in college, now am Program Manager of the MNUDL. I'll do my best to flow, you should do your best to signpost and clearly read tags and cites. I judge about 10-15 national level high school debates a year. I want to be included on the email chain so I can check for clipping and/or whether a team claims they read something they did or didn't, but my flow will reflect what words come out of your mouth, not what words are in your speech doc. If you want an argument on my flow then make sure you are being clear and articulate; speed isn't a problem for me, but being unclear is. I'll let you know if I can't understand you at least 3 times. At that point if you don't adapt it's your problem :) I will do my best to judge debates in a non-biased way and give you a decision/feedback that I would have liked to have had as a debater/coach.
One other note that hopefully won't be important, if there's a reason that something uncommon needs to happen in a debate (someone needs to take a break due to stress/anxiety/fatigue, there needs to be an accommodation, you or someone else can't debate against another debater or in front of another judge, etc.) please let me know BEFORE THE DEBATE and don't bring it up as a theory argument (unless the other team did something warranting it during the debate). I find it is best to deal with community based issues not through a competitive lens, but through a community consensus and mindfulness model. Be advised, I take issues like this very seriously, so if you bring up something like this in the debate I will decide the outcome of the debate on this point and nothing else. Legitimate reasons are fine and important, but trying to 'game' the system with these kinds of 'ethics' violations will end very poorly for everyone involved.
Topics I'm familiar with ~~
Emerging Technology- It was the 2022-2023 topic, my favorite and where I started debate - it was relevant to real world events and it was really interesting to debate about
IDEA- It was to expanding education for persons with disabilities and I thought it was weird that the packet CP was to fund it through marijuana legalization
Income Inequality - Currently suffering through it
Theory~ run it, I'll listen but like if the other team spends 10 seconds on it the flow is out -
Aff has infinite prep - Neg has 13 minute speech --- This argument is a 50/50 split for me
Kritik ~ Love Kritiks - very rarely will someone know how to debate FW but love K debaters that do -- Also I buy really vague alts, like REALLY vague alts - not too vague though I guess...
Do not impact turn the cap K
IF applicable - run orientalism Kritik, I wanna see it and advocated for
Counterplan~ CP with analytics that says we solve AFF without explanation get me ick. Also like find cards that say you solve AFF somehow it's easy. Love net bens but hate internal net bens -- I genuinely believe that CPs need to have a net ben or otherwise they're kinda bad for the debate space because it just allows NEG to have so many ways to solve AFF and it could be something ridiculous like magic to solve the AFF and I would agree on that theory argument
Disadvantage ~ Run it, idk
Topicality ~ Yeah cool run it
Planless AFFs ~ I think that they are okay but have two weaknesses in my opinion.
1 - On FW, can you proof that your way of debating is good for the debate space and that o/w procedural fairness - that's where I get loss a lot because I do believe in procedural fairness is lost when K-AFFs are run but they can and should proof that current debate space it's in is all that matters
2 - If policy focus plan then can it solve your impacts without being vague - if not policy focus how is it not exclusively AFF - Can you also proof that only AFF solves while not letting the NEG to easily counterperm or not letting them just say "okay you solved it in this round already" somehow explain how that solvency in this round is not enough
Hi, I'm Max [any/all]. Add me to the email chain:
Coach @ Capitol Hill MS 23 -
I'm a third year policy debater [also did LD twice lol], team captain @ St Paul Central, and I currently coach @ Capitol Hill MS. I haven't really earned a right to true argumentative preferences. Above all else, please explain your arguments and probably avoid the "Hegel K" or assume I have a preexisting understanding of it. It’s “Max” and not “judge” please please please do not call me judge.
I'm a competent flow, and if i'm judging you I'm certain i can flow you, as long as you are clear. I will not hesitate to clear you or say louder in the round. I'll give ya three warnings until I actually get annoyed. Please time yourself, I will most likely forget if its a round in JV or Varsity.
--Top Level: Have fun, don’t do anything offensive, and learn! I’ll answer any questions before or after the round, and if its like “what speech comes next” or something like that, I’ll answer it then. The thing I want to emphasize the most is HAVE FUN!!! This shouldn't be too stressful or competitive and the focus should be building community and learning.
--Try to attempt line by line and not just read random things---in the rebuttals if you say something similar to “answering their argument about [x]”, I’ll be super excited!!!
--The rest of this paradigm is unnecessary for y'all
--Offense > Defense, Tech > Truth, always. The fundamental core of my paradigm will always be that I adhere to technical debating before putting my own thoughts about arguments in, and will try to remain as impartial as always---every predisposing I have will always be overwhelmed by debating in round. Dropped arguments=true, so can vote on presumption, but in rare scenarios. I can be persuaded to reasonability more so than the average judge probably, but the 1AR has to flesh it out, and I think the articulation of "our aff is core of the topic" should probably be unworkable. To me an argument is a claim + impact, i.e. saying the sky is red doesn’t matter if dropped until the 2NC explains why it matters, and then the 1AR gets new answers. The less of a warrant the argument originally had means the less of a warrant required to answer it.
--I know stuff about the topic. Have judged lots of middle school, a fair amount of rookie, and am in enough HS debates to feel confident in my ability to judge.
--Speed is not an issue. Just be clear :) If I can flow college out rounds, its a you problem not a me problem when I can't flow you.
--Favorite 2NR will always be a topic DA or an Impact Turn. IDK just like I enjoy it. Don't particularly dislike any 2NR if the speaker giving it is persuasive and technically good on it.
--Non policy FW's r fine. I will choose an interp that was given to me in the round, not an arbritrary middle ground or call FW a "wash", because I wouldnt be able to evaluate the rest of the debate then. Middle grounds are usually more persuasive, so you're free to advocate for them.
--No inserting rehighlightings. You have to read it.
I will only evaluate arguments made on the flow, not arguments you didn’t make---there are 2 exceptions to this that are exceedingly rare and will probably never matter
1] You actively harmed someone else in the round---being racist, sexist, etc or touched someone without consent---auto L. I'm including suggesting "death is good". [please note that this is distinct from questions of if death based impacts are good things to talk about, but if you need that clarified probably don't go for that argument.]
2] The issue happened outside of the round---I am uncomfortable evaluating high schoolers interpersonal drama, and would rather talk to tab before the round if it’s serious---i will do my best to conflict those that are harmful before tournaments though.
You should do line by line, answering your opponents arguments, with short [can't emphasize the short part enough] overviews in certain contexts [complex counterplans, anywhere where you're doing global impact calc, 2r's, kritiks].
The thing that will get you most ahead with me is things like judge instruction, impact comparison, having better evidence and doing active evidence comparison, referencing authors, things like "even if" statements.
My favorite debates include passionate debaters defending their arguments with clear understanding and strong ethos - I’d much rather have you read and defend Baudrillard with understanding and enjoyment than you read politics and an advantage counterplan that demonstrate 0 real awareness of things. [disregard the above paragraph for any novice division, and don't feel bad if you don't understand things, thats kinda what novice is all about and i'll help ya out if you want some help]
--Improve them with: Well formatted docs, recent/good research, ethos, clarity, persuasion, line by line/ mastery of the flow, understanding, strategic cross-ex's.
--Lower them with: Bad breath control [vaccumm cleaners], accusing arguments as being dropped when they weren't, long and unengaging overviews, stealing prep, not facing the judge when speaking.
--You start at a 28.5. Above a 29 you should break. Below a 26 you were problematic and I'm going to talk to your coach.
Here are a list of people that have influenced how i think about debate as both a game and activity; Marshall Steele, Cayden Mayer, Maren Lien, Eleanor Johnson, DKP, Azja Butler, Nick Loew, DCH, Jake Swede, Teddy Munson, Tom Mickelson, IGM, OTT, Skye, and most of the MNUDL coaching staff probably.
And finally, some quotes because people do that for some reason in paradigms
link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way - DKP
My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know. - Melekh Akintola
I will tank my school career for a file standard - Marshall Steele