Experience level:

I've been in debate for 11 years. 4 years as a student, 5 years as a coach and 2 years as a Program Coordinator for the Minnesota Urban Debate League.

2025 Sections/State:

I haven't had a lot of time to judge on this topic. That means that I'm not exposed to the meta of the topic, nor do I have a great amount of subject knowledge. That means you probably have to do more work to explain to me what you are talking about and why you should win.

Having judged at sections I have a very good idea of the meta of the topic and am very familiar with it. I debated on the China topic during my senior year of high school and have a personal interest in AI and have done research in my free time into AI. As well as I've seen quite a few native ip affs, and I used to run give back the land my sophomore year of highschool. I am however still unfamiliar with the legalism stuff so you should explain your legal mechanisms to me.

Generalized thoughts

I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.

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.

I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.

Kritiks

I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative.

For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts alarger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

Topicality

T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.

This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.

Disadvantages

I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.

Cross ex

Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.

Speaker Points

Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
30=Perfect speech
27.5=Average
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior

If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at akintola@augsburg.edu

Kiernan, (she/her) ☺️

Quick little about me:

• I've been involved in debate in one form or another most of my life, I believe it is such an amazing opportunity and I am so glad you are participating in it!
• I’m a junior at Central High School (class of '26!), and it will be my 3^rd year debating at Central, 6th total.
• I am a coach for Hidden River MS.
• My email is kiernanbaxterkauf@gmail.com if you need it for any reason, I’m always happy to answer questions.

Middle School Judging:

• Middle school debate is for you all to have fun and learn! if you have any questions at any point ask them and I will always try my best to help, debate can be stressful and confusing sometimes and I want as many people as possible to have a good experience, and my job is to facilitate that!! also just like a general rule of thumb, be nice to each other ☺️
• Yes, I am aware MS kids don't really read paradigms--- it's fun to write though!

High School Judging:

• IP-specific: I am a varsity debater on the topic, and I am pretty in-depth on a lot of topic literature. However, please explain your arguments!! I will probably know things like acronyms, etc.
• Please say "counterplan" not "cp" It just doesn't work with my brain. I am serious haha.
• all my middle school stuff applies here, just be nice :)
• The top line is that I am here to watch and judge you all, and whatever you want to run in front of me is perfectly okay. Unless you are running really obscure stuff, you can assume I will know what you are talking about. I am fine with K’s/Kritikal Affirmatives, you need to explain why your performance is important and what that means. I am here to support you all; you do not have to adapt to me.
• speed is fine, I can flow you.
• With that in mind, running racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments is not going to get you far in debates, and you are not going to win this one if that’s the path you choose to go down.
• Everything from the middle school paradigm applies here! Since I am a high school student, I assume that most/all the teams I judge are novices, and I am always here to help! + Final note: Keep in mind that I am a high school student. My opinions may not always be correct, and I am not set in stone on anything, but I know a fair bit about debate, and I am always here to help!!

****TLDR: have fun, be nice, and try your best!****

Yao - She/Her

I did 4 years of Highschool debate for Highland Park.

general rule of thumb:

• be respectful
• clarity > speed

I generally prefer policy but will vote on anything.

♥

Sofia she/her

i would like to be on the email chain (if there is one): my email is sofiabdebate [at] gmail.com

debated @ Minneapolis South 2022-2025

coached @ Ann Sullivan 2024-2025

pls be kind and have fun with it. i want debate to be as safe and non-stressful as possible. let me know if you need anything or have questions.

I will try my best to only evaluate what I hear in round, which means you need to explain your arguments and implicate them so i do not need to intervene. I will vote on anything that is well explained, that overrides all my preferences for arguments.

izak gallini-matyas is the GOAT and my takes are heavily derived from his coaching influence.

other big influences: Sandy b-b and noah winters

♥

max was here :) - 2/22/25

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coatesdj@gmail.com

2024-5 rounds (as of 3/23): 77

Aff winning percentage: .545

("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.

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 71 minutes 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. "Stanford," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Stanford matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about the resolution to "Stanford."The latest wreck I had to hear in this regard was "according to California State University." Given that there are 23 Cal State campuses, that gives me no way even to figure out where your author works. Certainly "according to Professor Jones of San Diego State" is not too hard for you.

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.

I like to consider myself an "experienced debater", I have been debating since 2015, and coaching since 2018. I will sustain most arguments in a round up through spark, I used to read spark. However, if you read any racism, sexism, ableism, any other "ism" good arguments I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose (and use my magic judge political capital to make you lose the rest of your rounds). Additionally, I will fill out paperwork for you to get 0 speaks. The line is drawn from a hypothetical silly argument, to real world harms from the words you say.

K AFF

Run em, expect T debate, win T debate, standers alone if done well will get you the ballot. Win. Simple. Also FW is a thing (don't get it confused with framing) don't drop it. If you are running a K AFF I expect the thesis of the 1AC to be in the 2AR.

Do I think you need to link to the resolution...no. You do have to tell me why your issue is more pressing than the NEG's method of debate.

Joke ARGs

Yes.

Disads

Disads are cool, run them if you have them, I like them more than counterplans. Do not run disads that clash with FIAT theory. Do not read more than two uniqueness cards I might fall asleep, your RFD will end up being very empty. Similarly, do not read non-unique, I tell this to my middle school debaters; non-unique is not a voting issue, once again I will fall asleep. I will very, very, very, rarely vote on non-unique (unless its actually non-unique i.e. politics DA's).

Counterplans

I find CP's boring, I am voting on whether the AFF's policy is good, not whether the NEG's could be better otherwise it is just plan vs plan. Obviously, the NEG could always create a better version of the plan because they are not bound by silly little things like topicality. So I think a counterplan has to meet ground, and reasonability arguments. Stand alone counterplans will not be voted on, more often than not they are plan plus. If the net benefit isn't stated before the 1NR I will not weigh the CP. Bonus points if you use a CP to double bind them into a topicality argument, that in my opinion is the best way a CP can be ran.

Kritiks

I love kritiks, run kritiks. I am a K debater, and as such I will likely understand most K's. If you dig out the dinosaur earth K, you will get between 0.1 and 1 extra speaks (depending on your understanding); this kritik is my baby. Further more, joke args are cool, they bring more fun to the "sport", and at the end of the day, I do debate cause its fun, lord knows it doesn't pays well. Having in depth understanding of a K will net you massive speaks, this extends to using the K as an independent DA (if done well), using T debate as links to the K, using the perm to the K as links to the K, ect... On the flip side reading a K, and not understanding the authors you read, will do... something...to your speaks. I am pretty familiar with most generic K's and branches of those. I am also familiar with most philosophical and high theory literature so you may not need to do as much work on explanation in front of me, so feel free to spend more time on the link debate.

Topicality

Don't bother, unless the AFF is actually not topical. Topicality is real life uniqueness, I would rather take a nap. If there are like 3 aff's that meet under your interp, I'm not voting for it. Going for theory off one card will be a rejection of the card not the team for the most part.

I am weird and will vote AFF on topicality if there is a sufficient standards turn, but I am yet to see it happen.

Theory

I'm not sure what debate really is, even after many years, if you can explain it to me on this flow, I would appreciate it. (You get the point) If you are going to run theory, run it right. Know your own theory before running it, or it gets messy fast.

If there is a E-mail chain, add me. ---> Seabass.debate@gmail.com I wont read the cards unless there is extensive debate over them in round. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow the doc I will flow what I hear.

Here's a link to a rick roll ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ If you don't believe me you can click it.

A survey I stole from someone else's paradigm:

Can be more dead inside based on what happens------X------------------------------------Dead inside

Policy---------------------------------------------XK (flexy debaters r so rad and cool)

TechX----------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----X-------------------------------Read all the cards

Politics DA is a thing-----------------------------XPolitics DA not a thing

Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X---- Yes your Baudrillard (In fact u are literally Baudy now!)

Clarity------------------------X---------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-----------------------------------X-----------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------X-----------------IF wE WiN A onE pERceNt RisK...

Longer ev--------------------X--------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------X--I only read what you read

Referencing THIS philosophy in your speech---------------------X---plz don't

Fiat double bind------------------------------------------X-literally any other arg

AT: -X------------------------------------------------------- A2:

Bodies without organs----------------------------X--Organs without bodies (Skeletons are pretty rad)

Structural Inherency-----------------------X------------------Attitudinal Inherency

Red Bull-------------------------Monster (I am poor)------------------Water-------------------X-Milk

Paper Flow---------------------X--------------------Digi Flow

Laptop Stickers-X----------------------------------------Stand Stickers

Line by Line--------------------------------------X---Flow Anarchy

Reasonability------X-----------------------------------competing interpretations

Epistemology-----------X---------------------------Policy

deBAte is A gamE---------------------------X--I would rather not hear this anymore

Bribe---------------------------------------XBigger Bribe

Times New Roman-------------X---------------Comic Sans

Hello! My name is Eleanor and my pronouns are she/her. I debated for Central and coached Hidden River. Currently I’m studying economics at UMN.

A lot of my judging experience is judging high school novice/JV and middle school debates. Debate is a place for everyone to grow, so I prioritize creating a round where everyone can learn and have fun. If you are actively harming any of that your speaks will reflect it. This also means that you should run what you’re most comfortable with and make sure to explain it thoroughly.

Quality>Quantity—Not a good judge for more than 5 off and outspreading your opponents.

Clarity>Speed—I was on the slower end as a debater and won many rounds that way. I can flow nat cir debates, but it will be to your advantage to slow down. Also, please signpost clearly and distinguish between one card and the next by changing tone/speed/saying the word “next”/etc.

Tech>Truth—Within reason, especially if you’re making econ arguments.

Tag team is ok.

“PLEASE ACTUALLY LABEL YOUR FLOWS IN [THE] DOC AND IN SPEECH: I will dock points if you don't. [It’s] an accessibility issue and the minor time skew of clicking on the flow and coming up with a name isn't worth annoying your judge.” -Marshall Steele

My hearing can be dubious at times so please minimize background noise by making sure your microphone is clear for online debate and limiting whispering during speeches.

If I am knitting, crocheting, or fidgeting in some other way I am still listening, it just helps me sit still so I can pay attention.

If you need anything to make sure that the round is accessible to you, please say so before the round.

I would love to be on the email chain: eleanordebate@gmail.com and stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com . For questions or concerns please email the eleanordebate address.

January 2024 Update: For some reason people seem to think it’s ok to be rude to, post round, etc me; that is not cool and a great way to get a 26. Thinking I’m a debater when I walk in the room is ok (I know I look younger than I am), talking over me and arguing about speech times isn’t.

Hi!

I judge and coach middle school debate, I did 4 years of middle school debate for Yinghua and 4 years of high school debate for Highland. I'm currently a senior at Highland and coach Yinghua debate.

2 important things.

1. In a debate round you need to attack the other teams argument, however you can not attack the other team. At the end of the day this is a educational game, and should not be an excuse to be mean. You need to show a basic respect for the topic you are debating about and the people you are debating against.

2. is that I cant vote on an argument I can’t hear, make sure you are projecting your voice!

In a middle school debate round (rookie) if you have won solvency that's like 90% of the battle.For any higher level debate in middle school there is much more wiggle room.

Have fun and keep trying!

Also if you have questions email me @ stringworm15@gmail.com (crazy email ik i made it in 8th grade and its too late now)

For High School Novice/Middle School:

basically please just have fun and be kind to each other! debate should be about learning and having a good time so don't say anything offensive and stay on topic and we should be good. i will answer basic questions like speech times and stuff during the round, but after round i'll answer just about any question you ask me. please time yourselves since it's a good habit to get into, and if there's an email chain please add me to it.

i'll give you a 0.2 boost in speaks if you add in a song title from any gracie abrams song

About me:

hi :) my name is eleanor (she/her) eleanorlasalle31@gmail.com

i'm a debater for central high school, though i also did two years of middle school debate for hidden river before that!

She/her - respecting others pronouns is non negotiable

I’m currently a coach at Washburn HS, and a former varsity debater for St Paul Central HS. As a debater I was the 2N/1A and leaned towards using Ks and soft left affs

Judging -

Idc what you call me in round but if you're going to use my first name try to pronounce it right (Mar - in)

TLDR - I’ll vote on anything (within ethical bounds) as long as it’s argued + explained well
If you’re a middle schooler read the first 3 sections of my paradigm at least.

Round procedure -

Feel free to ask questions before the round begins, as well as in round as long if it is about procedure

If I’m making origami or something don’t worry I’m still paying attention

I am fairly lax and won't be a huge stickler about certain procedural things, just run them by me before you try anything. I am very empathetic to tech issues; my computer was usually the tech issue... I try to help bridge any accessibility problems that come up (tbh working tech is a privilege that debate takes for granted).

I do allow tag teaming in cross, just please split the time evenly. In speeches however try to avoid talking to your partner during their speech because that’s a pet peeve of mine.

I keep my own timer in round, but also have another for yourself because I am forgetful sometimes.

Presentation/speaks -

I do not flow off the speech docs. Usually I don't even look at them during your speech so try to speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying there's less of a chance I will flow it.

I can flow fast spreading for the most part (slow down on important analytics), but please justify the need to speak insanely fast. It won’t add to your speaks if you’re not using that extra time you’re making for yourself to make your arguments more complex.

Make sure to stand up and face the judge (me) while speaking (even during CX), if able.

Pet peeve of mine is unlabeled flows - please label them to make my life easier. It makes it harder to organize my flows so it increases the chance something will be misflowed - and also I WILL name them myself if not given a name, and many people across debate can attest to my unserious naming conventions.

Make sure to use all your time in all speeches - this includes cross-ex!

Please be civil - hateful language or actions will not be tolerated and result in immediate deduction from speaker points (if not an auto L) and an email to your coach.

Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

I like it when constructives are numbered and/or specifically telling me what argument a card is responding to.

You should be pausing, saying “next” (or the like), or changing tone when you start reading a new card’s tag.

Don’t give me overviews or underviews in any of the first 3 constructives unless you really think it is beneficial on a certain flow.

In rebuttals you should be explicitly telling me what I should be voting on and how I should be weighing arguments - write my ballot for me.

Minimize new flows in the block.

Yay direct and explicit clash!!

Tech—O—————Truth

Aff -

I have slightly lower standards for presumption ballots, but mostly comes down to lack of extended warrants. I usually air on the negative side if the aff fails to extend solvency. I prefer to have some case warrants in the 2AR, even superficially.

I have lower standards for IL chains, unless the neg blows it up.

With me framing will be your friend, especially if you have extinction scenarios.

CPs -

As with any advocacy, you should be clearly explaining what it does and how it has any solvency/net benefits.

I prefer articulated perms but if the neg drops it I’ll vote on very little.

PICs annoy me so I have a low burden for PIC theory.

I have been told I don’t make it clear enough how annoyed I get with most policy CPs in general, so just run them well.

DAs -

The links and IL chain will make or break these for me - defend them with your life.

Prove to me why it o/ws case or takes out a significant enough portion of it.

Kritiks -

Because I am an experienced K debater, I am both a good and bad judge for them. I am probably a bit biased towards well run Ks, but I will not be forgiving with poorly run Ks.

Make sure you explain to the fullest degree anyway if you are running a K because they can be tricky. Walk me through the story of the k and tell me why it o/ws case.

Please don’t just throw around buzz words - they don't mean anything on their own. I know a lot of the high philosophy concepts/definitions, I just usually can't immediately mentally access them while they are being spread through at 300 wpm so explanation is incredibly important.

Signpost your k sections!! - especially in the block and 1ar.

I have trouble flowing fast FW analytics so slow down and make sure its clear.

I am not a fan of non-UQ (oh wow we live in a society) or use-of-state links but I’ll vote on them if they are explained with how it relates to the K impacts.

I have fairly high standards for impact turns, but it mostly comes down to explanation.

Ks are my favorite don’t disrespect them please T-T

Theory and topicality -

I understand most theory/topicality as long as it’s not super niche but please explain it like I’ve never heard of it before - I won’t vote on it if you don’t tell me why I should care about it in round. I am not the fastest flow-er of analytics so you HAVE to slow down.

If you start new theory flows after the 1NC/2AC make them relevant or else I will NOT care.

The buzz word standards are the ones I’m most likely to get lost in. It’s fine to only briefly explain during the constructives, but you need to contextualize/impact them during the rebuttals if you want me to care.

In my opinion, voters are not implicit - it's fine ig if you don't have them in the 1NC/2AC but in all further speeches you need to at least mention them.

I'm pretty wary of annoying theory tbh, so if you roll up with like 7 theory flows I'm going to be more forgiving if the other side drops something.

Joke args -

I love joke args with my full heart because I believe its one of the little things that make this entire activity worth it sometimes, but there is a time and place for them, and the content they project should follow basic ethical standards.

If you do run a joke arg you have to be 100% in it - confidence is key! Look me straight in the eyes while you affirm that the fly spaghetti monster controls the planet. If both teams are in it, this is the most likely time I’ll award 30s lol

My email is marenjlien@gmail.com- please put me on any email chain. If you have any after round questions that aren’t answered in my ballot feel free to email me about it, I’m happy to explain anything.

Cheeky document names or any star trek references will earn you extra speaks. A 30 if you play a musical instrument instead of a constructive.

St. Paul Central '23, Coach at St. Paul Central

Macalester '27

They/Them

For email chains: stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

For questions/comments/concerns (i.e. anything not during a tournament): cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com

Pre Round

--- Yes Card Doc

--- Do Judge Instruction

--- Just read something you feel best running. I'd rather you read something you know how to run that something Im "partial" to badly. This isnt an "auto vote on kaffs", its just a note that I have and will vote on whatever. My job is to judge the debate in front of me, not force you to comply to my whims.

---If your args have TW/CW, let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech. I also just generally am not a good judge for death/sexism/racism/etc. good.

---Go about 10% slower in rebuttals on blocks than you think you should

Prefs

Kritiks---Good for Ks, prefer a higher degree explanation of your theory of power and why your ontology claims matter. Framework args that bracket out K debate entirely in front of me is probably not the smartest but ill vote on it. More specific your link the better. PoMo Ks would benefit from a thesis level overview.

Counterplans---Creative debate=good debate. Top level of the 2rs explanation of the mechanism of the CP will go a long way. Theoretical objections to counterplans exist and I don't have predetermined thoughts about them. Condo can be good or bad, depends on the tech.

Framework---Its prior to the rest of the debate and it will never be a "wash" for me, you need to slow down on this for me personally. Judge instruction for what it means if you win framework is important and I don't want to do that work for you. If its really messy, ill see if there are paths to a ballot that would occur for one side under both frameworks but thats it.

Topicality---Just make sure the 2nr explains the voters for me thats all. i default to a question of models but will evaluate however.

Hi, my name is Elliot (he/him) and I am currently a debater at Central, and coach at Capitol Hill. I have debated for three years, and currently compete in high school varsity. I'm pretty laid back, and I think that debate (especially at the lower levels) should be about having fun, and learning a little along the way.

Middle School Debate

There isn't much to say here, I am simply here to help yall have a good time and get better at debate. As a judge I will evaluate the arguments that you as debaters make in round.

My criteria for a good round is that:

1) The affirmative should read a plan text

2) Both teams should respect each other

and 3) that's about it.

This doesn't mean you can't be assertive with your questions in cx (cross-examination) or your rebuttals, but there is a fine line between being assertive and aggressive. I always try to assume ignorance instead of malice, but just don't like cuss out your opponents.

Novice Debate

Preeeeetty much the same thing as MS, except my familiarity with the packet is probably less. Other then that, yall should be fine, but I'll update this paradigm later, so maybe somethings will come up :/

Hello! My name is Audrey and my pronouns are she/her. If I ever judge high school, add audreysnowbeck@gmail.com to the chain, but I don't think that's going to be necessary for at least two years.

I judge exclusively middle school, so the only really important things I have to say are as follows:

First, BE RESPECTFUL. That means respecting pronouns, your partner, your opponents, and yourself. These are all non-negotiable. If you are acting like a jerk I will give you a look and talk to you after. Debate is dead if it isn't a place where people feel safe.

Secondly, say what you think. Don't get too hung up on making sure you have authors and cards and evidence for everything. If you have an idea that you think is good, I want to hear it because I'll probably think it's good too.

Finally, have fun! Debate shouldn't ever be anything more than a place to learn and try your best.

Hi there! I'm Lily St Dennis and I use she/her pronouns.

Email: stdennislily@gmail.com

Background:

I was the head coach for the Highland Park Middle School debate team for 3 years and debated on the Highland Park High School varsity team for 4 years. I have been involved in debate for 7 years and think it is a great place for students to learn how to communicate ideas and learn about current events.

I'm currently studying English and Agriculture Education at UMN.

My basic rules of thumb are:

1) Debate is supposed to be fun. It can be easy to get down on yourself when it comes to losing rounds, but I feel that it is more valuable that you are learning how to articulate your thoughts and ideas to others.

2) Debate should be a safe space for people so bad sportsmanship and lack of respect for the people around you (and yourself) is not cool.

3) Read what you are most comfortable. Debate is more enjoyable and more education is achieved when debaters clearly care about what they are saying and have a deep understanding of their arguments.

4) Like most judges, I hope that you write the ballot for me in the 2ar/ 2nr. If you provide me with an evaluation of impacts and where we are at the end of the round. I do vote off of flowing but I'm only as organized as you are as speakers.

More specifics:

Spreading: Totally go fast but please be clear. If I can't understand what you are saying, it's likely I don't fully understand your argument as well. (AKA please signpost and prioritize clarity)

CX: I am paying attention, if you say things in CX that contradict, I will take note. But it is the job of the opponent to point out that it happened AND why that's a problem. Also, tag-team in CX is totally chill as long as you don't talk over your partner and prioritize the speaker it is supposed to be.

Specific arguments: I will listen to anything. I think creative arguments are great. I mostly ran policy arguments in HS, but that doesn't mean I can't get down with a good K/ k affs. The key is clarity and explanation. If there is a clear story of each argument, I'm likely to vote for it.

If you have question about anything at all (i mean it), please feel free to email me!

Hi! I was a debater for Saint Paul Central and currently coach Murray's team. You may also see me floating around MDAW and UDL tournaments.

I always try to have fidgets and earplugs/other sensory aids on me. Whether you're in my round or not, you're always welcome to ask. If you need any accommodations please talk to me before the round.

They/she. Use the right pronouns for everyone in the round or you'll lose speaker points and I'll talk to your coach. Same goes for sexism, racism, ableism, and any form of bigotry.

I do my best to be neutral, but any real life impacts are far more important. Debate should be fun, educational and inclusive.

I'm open to all types of arguments, so run what you want to. I have the most experience with standard policy affs and kritiks on neg. That being said, don't assume I know your literature. I usually don't.

**

Middle School Debaters

I'm a coach before I'm a judge. My goal is for you to learn as much as possible and enjoy debate. If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to help (as long as it isn't unfair). Read the plan, I really don't want to judge rounds without them.

**

Online debate/Tech

I've been on both sides of quite a few online debates now, and they're messy. I'll wait for tech issues, and will not judge the round or your speaks on video quality, microphone quality etc. Don't exploit this.

tech--x------------------truth

Email: lilyteskedebate@gmail.com

HI!!!! My name is Adai, my pronouns are he/him. I've been doing debate for 4 years now and I honestly just want to see y'all enjoying it too.

FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE - 2025

Please respect each other, I'm gonna docs speaker points if you're being mean

rookie/novice - I really want you guys to prove to me why x matters and how the affirmative plan effects it, try your best to use the information you've said from the stuff that you read. It's satisfying to judges to see you bring back arguments again.

JV -the counterplan sounds really fun to run for mebut you're gonna have to bring up the DA, on it's own it's really not gonna convince me to vote for you but hey, if they don't answer it then you should tell me that global war will happen if the CP doesn't get picked

Varsity - BIG choices, do you go for the DA - K for like a way to talk about how the AFF is militaristic and capitalistic, or do you go for the DA-CP for a more economic benefit focus. Also if the negatives reads the CP and K please point out how their Counterplan and their alternative for the kritik can't exist in the same world or how colonization of Mars (the focus of the CP) is capitalistic. Also at this stage, please read your affirmative plan in the 1AC, I will steal your packets and highlight it after the round if you didn't read it in your 1AC.

I will bring extra writing utensils for you to borrow and I will have extra flow papers because its the most important thing in debate! also I will show you my flow at the end if there's time so you can see if I understood you.

Max Ulven

Any/All

Debater: St. Paul Central (2021-2025)

Coach: Capitol Hill Middle School (2023-)

centralub.debate@gmail.com

Novices/ Middle Schoolers:

Please have fun, don't be offensive, and try your hardest! I'll be more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, and if its a question along the lines of "what speech comes next", etc, I'll be more than happy to answer it in the moment! The most important thing though is that you should have fun! Nothing about this should matter all that much and I want to help you make sure its not too stressful or competitive and let you focus on community building and learning!

My best [two] pieces of advice/ things that can help you win more debates [this also applies to all other debates actually]

1. Try to do 'line by line' - this means answering your opponents arguments in reference to them, for example saying something like "answering their argument about the link", or "on the perm argument", it will definitely boost your speaks and probably put you in a way better position to win the debate!

2. Try and do impact calc - this just looks like comparing your impacts to your opponents impacts at the end of the round. I'm sure your coaches can give you more advice, but it can look like: "Our impacts about social justice and reforming the police should matter more because you know that's a problem now, whereas their arguments about federalism are silly and not real", or "warming should outweigh economic decline because it guarantees extinction while causing resource shortages that collapse the economy in the meantime". This massively improves your odds of winning because it gives me an explicit reason to vote for you!

Main paradigm thoughts:

Tech over truth.

I'm 17 years old. I don't have the experience, qualifications, or justifications to hold strong argumentative opinions, especially to the point I'd write them down here. As long as your argument isn't offensive or harmful, I'll probably vote on it [and also have ran or at least thought about it/something in its range if that's what you're worried about]! I am constantly bouncing around on wether or not I should write my thoughts on arguments, and if I wanted I could probably write about a mile of things, but I decided not to for now, because those thoughts really shouldn’t be relevant ever, and would all change given technical execution, evidence, and spin.

I care about being a decent human being. I understand if you don't want to like, become besties with the other team you're debating and that's chill! But avoid being directly hostile, mean, or passive-agressive to them---show me you're better based on research and technical execution, not because you're meaner. My favorite judges were always the ones that both were technical, but also made sure everyone was okay/ emphasized inclusivity, and I want to be that person too.

The thought I will share is that there is a weird divide in the national debate community between perceived notions of ‘K’ and ‘Policy’ debaters. I hope that this changes , but until it does here’s what I’ll say: While I primarily went for policy based arguments in high school, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about kritikal arguments, and my coaches and lab leaders (Turner, BK, DKP, Azja, the RKS staff) reinforced that general notion while giving me a lot more nuance and education. Good debaters can go for whatever, and good judges will evaluate whatever. Means I think that the best debates involve a lot of evidence, substance, and nuanced specific narratives, but I can judge anything from a KvK debate to a framework debate to impact turns, DA + Case, and process competition. Fundamentally - do you and I will meet you there. Just explain the implication of winning certain arguments.

Left to my own devices, I'll be likely to always think through things in an Offense-Defense manner and think you need at least some way to solve your offense.

I'm always going to do my best to be kind, engaged, and helpful as your judge - if you have any questions, ask them and if you have any issues with how I judged the debate please tell me - I might disagree with you, but also you may very well be right and I'll probably adjust in the future.

I'm more than comfortable flowing fast debaters, as long as you're clear! I will never be flowing the document - I may check cards during prep/ afterwards, and will shout clear, but I'm not going to use the doc to reconstruct the debate for you - I will check the doc for counterplan, perm, and plan texts only if relevant, and with hesitation - I'll probably be flowing on my laptop, either straight down or lining arguments up depending on the speed / messiness of the debate.

Higher points for people who: act like they want to be here, engage in line by line, do impact calculus, show understanding of the topic [either via original research, good explanations, or other ways], and good strategic cross-examinations.

Lower points for people who: repeatedly assert an argument was ‘dropped’ when it wasn’t, give speeches entirely ignoring any form of line by line debate, hiding ASPEC, and incomprehensible spreading [yes I will warn you, no I won’t be happy].

CX matters to me more than most. I'm going to pay attention to CX - this matters for your ethos and points, but also for the sake of me filling in or choosing to not fill in arguments for you later in the debate. High points will go to teams that can execute well in CX, and EXTREMELY high points to teams that can execute well in CX and use that in the debate to win.

Here's a list of people who have influenced a lot of my thoughts about debate, at least in some way/ form: Kiernan Baxter-Kauf, Cayden Mayer, Katie Baxter-Kauf, Marshall Steele, John Turner, Nick Loew, Azja Butler, DKP, Brandon Kelley, Connelly Cowan, Katie Carpenter, OTT, IGM, Jake Swede, most of the MN/MNUDL debate community.

Hello! I’m Mia (she/her), I am a senior at Eagan High School, I've debated (policy) all four years.

For email chain add me using eagancxdebate@gmail.com with the subject Tournament Name R# --- School AA v School NN

Mention anything about potatoes before the 2AR is over to get +0.1 speaker points

...

For middle school:

Don't worry about adapting to my paradigm (but feel free to read it down below if you want). Please be nice to your partner and opponents and extend your arguments throughout the round. Try to "clash" with your opponent's arguments as much as possible (they say ___ we say ____) and the best way to get me to vote for you is to do impact calc (why your impact matters) in the 2N/AR. I'm so excited to judge your round and feel free to ask me any questions!

...

For JV/Nov:

TLDR: Have fun, don't stress too much, it will be a good round.

[1] Debate is best when everyone feels included and you will get the most out of it when you are friendly with your opponents. This also applies to arguments, please do not run anything offensive, rude, or in any way harmful.

[2] I will default to evaluating the round as a educational games player, but I am also comfortable with stock issues or policymaker methods. I will use whatever is agreed upon on the framework page, but I am less familiar with hypothesis testing or other approaches. My decision is on what is carried through the flow in the 2N/AR (tech > truth, although often, tech = truth).

[3] I'd like to think I am a decent flow and can catch just about any speed but clarity and numbering points will help a lot. To reward good flowing, if you show me your flows at the end of the round and they are good, +0.1 speaker points.

[4] At the end of the debate, tell me why I should vote for you. The top of your 2N/AR should be judge instruction (ie. at the end of this round you vote neg because a risk of the dropped DA outweighs case for XYZ). If you "write my ballot" that would actually be so cool.

[5] A few pet peeves/non pet peeves:

---Run whatever positions you like. Please run whatever you are best at, you will do better running what you know rather than trying to excessively adapt. That being said, I usually ran topical affs and 4-5 policy offcase positions. I would prefer affs to be topical and do not consider myself familiar with K lit. However, I will definitely vote for Ks/K-Affs if I understand what you are critiquing and you win the tech. Feel free to ask me questions on any of this before the round starts, but tbh I probably don't have very strong opinions as I am (relatively) new to judging. If there is any out of round issue (accessibility, disclosure, anything) please tell mebefore we start so I know what any theoretical issues are based on/can contact tab beforehand if necessary.

---Call me whatever you want. I don't care, you can call me "Mia" , "Judge" , anything is totally fine.

---Ending speeches early. There is always something more you can say. If you don't have anything off the top of your head, its totally fine to pause (while the time is still running), look through your flows, check with your partner, etc. and then use the time you have remaining to make a couple more points. This is much more persuasive than giving a two minute rebuttal.

---Rebuttal speeches that are just reading cards. I would much rather have extended evidence from earlier in the debate and analytic clash.

---Going for everything. A 2NR should pick one offcase position to go for (or CP with DA). Attempting to go for everything you read in the 1NC is not persuasive and makes my decision messy. A 2AR should pick one advantage to go for and should answer all offcase the neg has in the 2NR. (On a similar note, I will default to judge kick unless the aff tells me not to.)

---Online Debate. Please don't steal prep. It's not cool. That being said, online debate is hard and tech issues are annoying so I most definitely give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I would prefer you turn your camera on, since its slightly awkward to stare at a dark screen for two hours but totally understand if camera off is necessary to connect, and will certainly not dock you for it. Please get some kind of confirmation from me (thumbs up, verbal, etc) before starting your speech.

---Tag team cross ex is totally cool with me. Only exception: if one team is mav, no one is allowed tag team. I don't flow cross ex but I do pay attention: it is binding and will influence speaker points.

I'm a senior at Minneapolis South High School, debating in my 4th year.

As of now I can only judge middle schoolers and high school novices, who don't read paradigms, so having a bunch of crap written out seems pointless.

If you are reading this and I am judging you, know that I care a lot about debate and your future in it, and accordingly will judge as objectively as possible, never incorporating any bias or deciding things based on how I 'think debate should work'. I might seem apathetic and like I don't want to be here, but I made a very conscious choice to be here judging you, and debate is a very important part of my life, so that's only how I appear.

Don't refer to me as anything, just make your arguments. If you must, call me Noah.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

I wanna make it so clear i go off what's on the flow if it's not on my flow i don't know it. so make sure to explain things well.

im down with k affs

I like T and Ks but i will vote for anything

I've been judging for a few years and i debated a bit before that (started judging in 2018)

Its okay to be nervous. debate especially when you just start debating can be really scary. Its okay take a deep breath. if that doesn't work talk to me we can ways pause the round for a minute or two for mental health.

Clarity comes before speed

Yes you can tag team but don't abuse it. (You can not tag team against a maverick )

Even if both teams are three headed monsters the third person who isnt in that debate CAN NOT help.

If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it

If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.

If you don't make it clear your going onto a new card by saying next it is very possible I'll miss your tag.

Make it clear where you on in the speech by sign posting i will probably flow it on the wrong flow which wont make your argument stronger.

Its totally fine to be assertive but don't be mean if you get mean I'll dock speaker points.

If i see you not flowing all of the speeches i will dock speaker points.

Don't ask me questions in round if it deals with the round wait until the debate is over and im giving my rfd.

Extending a card isnt re-reading the card its reading the author year then explaining the warrant in your own words

I don't flow cross x. BUT if you say something that goes against the side you supposed to be on i will write it down in the notes

Tell me if there is anything you don't want me to comment on like if you have a stutter. I dont wanna be bring that up and possibly just annoying you. You can just say things like hey dont bring up if i get stuck on words alot. you dont need to tell me why.