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.

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 a larger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

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.

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'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.

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.

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 kicktosscatch@gmail.com

Kiernan, (she/her)

Really quick about me:

• I've been involved in debate in one form or another a lot of my life, i believe it is such an amazing opportunity and i am so glad that you are participating in it!
• i am a sophomore at central high school (woo class of '26!), debated 2 years there and 3 before in MS.
• coach for hidden river MS starting 2023
• email is kiernanbaxterkauf@gmail.comif you need it for any reason
• ---MS---

middle school debate is for y'all to have fun and learn! if you have any questions at any point just ask them and I will always try my best to help, debate can be stressful and confusing sometimes and I want as many people possible to have a good experience- also just be nice to each other!

(yes i am aware MS kids don't read paradigms)

---HS---

t/l I'm a pretty lenient judge, i will vote on anything that is run well and makes as much sense as a novice round can. but here's a short little other bit:

-i definitely tend more towards policy and clash rounds over kritik arguments. But as of stuff for this season i understand all of it, as i am debating it, and i am well aware a good kritik can easily win a round.

-i am a tech over truth judge but if you are arguing anything that is homophobic, sexist, racist etc its going to be really hard to get good speaks that round, but i will try my best to hear you out and leave my opinions aside.

-in your rebuttals, please try and organize your points, the cleaner your line by line is, the easier it is for me to vote for you. if i cannot flow your points against what your opponents are actually saying is gonna make it a lot harder.

-all of my middle school stuff applies here too but i hope you all know that already. by the end of the debate you should be telling me the overall reasons i should vote for you, think big picture, tell me a story.

♥

Sofia she/her

pls be kind and have fun<3

i want you to be comfortable in debate and for it to be a safe and calm environment for everyone involved, debate is often stressful and i want to help make it feel less so. let me know if you need anything.

i'm a high school debater and i would love for everyone i judge to join high school debate!! ask me any questions you have!

please read your evidence clearly and loudly

i will evaluate what i hear in round, so please include impact weighing ("my impact is more important because...") and explain why you should win in final rebuttals so that i can decide the round at the end of the debate

♥

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi!

I judge and coach middle school debate, I did 4 years of middle school debate for Yinghua and 3 years of high school debate for Highland. I'm currently a junior at Highland and coach Yinghua debate.

2 important things.

1. 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. 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 don't email me because I won't see it but you can email djwhite@umn.edubecause he also coaches Yinghua and he will see it!

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 1989 (TV) by taylor swift

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 -

Speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying there's less of a chance I will flow it. I am not the fastest at flowing, but on analytics slow down.

I can flow fast spreading for the most part, 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 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. I also prefer only one perm, but if multiple are argued and justified well (as well as clearly explaining how they work and the context of them in round) I’m okay with it.

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.

Same deal as with CP perms - I'm not a fan of perm walls but I'll vote on them.

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 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.

You don't need to fully explain why theory is prefiat but at least give me like a sentence, don't just drop that and expect me to default to it.

I'm pretty wary of 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, as well as 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.

Central '19-'23

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!

My email is cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com if there's an email chain I’d like to be on it for ease of everything. add

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!

MS/Nov notes-

1. 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!
2. Read a plan text! If you are going for a CP or K, read the CP text or alternative!
3. 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!!!

Some notes:

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.

Hi, my name is Elliot (he/him) and I am currently a debater at Central, and coach at Capitol Hill. I have debated for two 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-ex) 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 :/

Rocky references boost speaks.

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.

I am a head coach for the Highland Park Middle School debate team and currently debate on the Highland Park High School varsity team. 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 only judge middle school tournaments so no one is really gonna see this but:

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. Just by attending the tournament, you are killing it!

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) if you have question about anything at all (i mean it), please feel free to email me! stdennislily@gmail.com

:)

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

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:

stpaulcentralcxdebate[AT]gmail[DOT]com

CHS 25

Coach @ Capitol Hill MS 23 -

ABOUT ME

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.

Novice/Middle Schoolers:

--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

JV/Varsity

TLDR:

--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. 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.

--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.

--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.

Tech>Truth

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.

PREFERENCES

Clarity+Speed>Clarity>>>>>Speed

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.

Here are a list of people that have influenced how i think about debate as both a game and activity; Cayden Mayer, Marshall Steele, Kiernan Baxter-Kauf, Katie Baxter-Kauf, Maren Lien, Eleanor Johnson, DKP, Nick Loew, Azja Butler, Teddy Munson, Jake Swede, OTT, IGM, Tom Mickelson, and most of the MN/MNUDL debate community.

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

Hello! I’m Mia (she/her), I currently debate for Eagan High School.

For middle school (if anyone’s reading this):

1) BE NICE!!! I believe debate is only fun and educational when everyone feels included and you will get the most out of it when you can be friendly with your opponents. The best rounds are when everyone is being kind to each other and creating a fun atmosphere, and, I’ll probably boost speaks. This also applies to arguments, please do not run anything offensive, rude, or in any way harmful.

2) I think debate is a game. I will vote for whoever has the most persuasive arguments carried through the flow at the end of the round.

3) Doing clear and specific impact calc/explaining why you should win in the 2N/AR is probably the best way to get me to vote for you, especially in close rounds. This includes doing comparisons between your arguments and your opponent's, and extending both evidence and warrants that support your claim.

I’m always happy to answer any questions! (If you read this and mention anything about potatoes in round, +1 speaker points)

he/him

General

I am in my third year debating at South High school, I love debate and want to be a part of it as much as I can!

Judging

If you are a middle school debater who sees this - good job! If you refer to me as "Egyptian Diplomat Andrew Slides" in a speech I will laugh and bump your speaks +1.

I am pretty chill with whatever since these aren't super complicated debates. Just be nice to each other and try to have a good time.

However, if you do some of the following you will have a much higher chance of winning in front of me (especially since middle schoolers don't read paradigms). If some of these seem very obvious to you, you're in a good spot.

GENERAL

• directly respond to the other teams arguments ("they say this, I say this")

• refer to me when speaking; you aren't talking to the other team, you're talking to me

• make analytical arguments instead of just reading evidence; this is obviously the case for rebuttals but goes for all speeches except the 1ac and maybe the 1nc. Evidence is important, but making smart arguments that pick apart the other team's positions will make you go far

• FLOW - it's so obvious when people aren't flowing since they just read stuff without taking into account the other team's errors. If the other team drops an argument you made, POINT THAT OUT. If the aff drops the DA in the 2ac or 1ar, you're almost definitely going to win the debate. However, if you say nothing and the aff brings it up in the 2ar, I'm gonna be begrudging to do that work for you.

• use all of your speech time and all of your prep time

• SOUND CONFIDENT - let's be real, do any of us know what we're talking about? Not really, especially someone like me who's relying on you to educate me on the debate subject matter. If you sound like you know what you're talking about, you probably do, how am I supposed to know?

• start your 2ar's and 2nr's by saying something like "vote [aff or neg] on [whatever argument you're winning on]". So if you're winning on the DA, say "vote negative on the DA that outweighs case".

IF YOU WANT REALLY HIGH SPEAKER POINTS

I give speaker points with discretion; 18-20 range is reserved for those who impressed the hell out of me and need to be debating in high school ASAP

• choose the best arguments you've made and explain them in the rebuttals instead of just extending everything or responding to what the other team said. Who cares if they've won an impact to the DA if there isn't a link? This is along the lines of pointing out errors in the other team, but just because they didn't drop an argument doesn't mean their response is good. Remember, you only need to win like 1 or 2 things to win the debate, so pick those and explain them to me.

• implicate arguments - ok, you've won no link on the DA, now what? Obviously I know what it means and will vote aff on it, but if you say something like "they don't have a link to the DA, this means we can pass the plan with no consequences while solving our impacts. so even if they're 100% right about their impact, you still vote aff", now I know exactly what my decision is going to be, because you just told me.

You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex

They/them

alexwodarz@gmail.com

im down with k affs you just better be good at responding to t cause i love t

I've been juding 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 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 aginst 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