Notes for MSHSL State Tournament:

• The rules state that debaters "should" read the source title, qualifications, author, and year. I'm fine if you just read author and year, but you must have all the source information available. I won't vote against debaters who didn't read full citations in their speeches based solely on the fact that they didn't "follow the rules" (which are ambiguous, if you ask me), but if your opponent asks for the citation information, you have to be able to provide it.
• I cannot call for evidence unless there's a challenge made, and the challenge cannot be frivolous. If you are challenging evidence due to belief of either fabrication or distortion, you must be specific and provide warranted reasoning for the evidence violation. If this happens, I will first ask the debater to either reread the card or specific lines from the card, and only in extreme cases where I cannot make a judgement without reading it myself will I call for it.
• Do not let the above two comments deter you from debating the quality of evidence. It can often be a mark of really high level debating if you tell me why your evidence is better than your opponent's, which can include source/author qualifications, recency, etc. and why that stuff matters in the debate.

Hey! I'm Tanvi. Small background on me, I was an LD debater at Rosemount High School in Minnesota for four years, and now I'm a fourth year out.

• Tech>truth but truth still matters. I vote off the flow, but if an argument is stupid and your opponent makes a decent argument as to why, I’m going to buy their extensions.
• Speed: Don’t spread but otherwise go as fast as you want. Add me to an email chain if you want to be sure I’ll catch everything adigedebate@gmail.com

Traditional Debate

Framework matters; doesn’t matter what it is but link into the winning framework if you want offense for me to vote on.

I appreciate good evidence analysis/indicts, impact comparisons, weighing, etc.

Circuit Debate

• CPs: Totally willing to hear a good counterplan. Pretty receptive to condo bad args so keep that in mind.
• DAs: Same with CPs
• Ks: I'm okay with some Ks but I'm not familiar with a lot of K lit. Don’t expect that I’m going to understand your K if it’s pretty dense/complicated. Also I don’t really love pre-fiat Ks and would rather not hear one if you’re going to run a K. In general, I would suggest you not run a K in front of me because I probably won't do justice to it.
• Phil: I probably won’t understand it.
• Theory: I’m willing to listen to theory arguments. I don’t care for theory structure all too much and I dislike disclosure theory.

Please make the debate accessible. If your opponent is not familiar with circuit structure/is a novice, don’t just use that to win the round. You can make whatever arguments you want but do it in a way that allows your opponent to engage with it.

Don’t be afraid to ask any questions!

I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

tahir.ahsan0@gmail.com

Debate Bio

LD debater in MN (2012-2016)

Irregular LD Judge (2018-present)

Comfort with non-stock material

If you've sought out my paradigm, this is probably the relevant material for you. As a general note, it's been 5 years since I last encountered the following with any regularity.

Theory: I'll accept it in relevant applications. Unless there is an extreme case, I default to drop the argument when accepting the theory shell.

Kritiks: I'm not entirely opposed to kritiks, but if they are lacking a strong connection to the opposing case and/or come across as something being read regardless of what your opponent brings to the round, they won't mean much to me.

With both theory shells and kritiks, I do not look favorably to instances where these are used merely to create timesinks in the opponent's next speech.

Preferences

Don't misgender your opponent when their pronouns have been provided (seriously, this happens about once a tournament and the most common reason I decrease speaker points). Better yet, just refer to them as "the Aff" or "the Neg."

I am fine with most speed. Please do keep in mind that remote debating conditions may change this. Slow down for tags, sources/authors, and key elements. Arguments that rely on your opponent missing them are not good arguments.

Always roadmap before your speech. I will ask for one before rebuttal starts if it isn't provided. It doesn't have to be a "quick roadmap" either as long as you aren't making arguments during it. The more specific you are the better; it's fine to deviate from the roadmap due to time constraints during the actual speech. Note that you should still be signposting your arguments in the speech.

Flex prep is allowed.

Unless the difference between the values is significant, don't spend time on them. I've spent too many hours hearing meaningless value debates.

Unless the standard/criterion has been conceded (or very one-sided), you'll be much more likely to get my ballot by connecting your impacts into both frameworks.

I won't make your extensions for you. Refuting your opponents argument does not constitute an extension. They are separate. A good extension will be able to inform a late audience member on a round's key argument and it's importance in framework(s) while staying concise.

Weigh the arguments. You should be telling me why your impacts should win you the round even if I didn't buy your rebuttals against the opposing impacts.

Speaker Points

I average 28 on the 30 point scale. Speaks will be lowered as a result of any condescension, bigotry, or over aggressiveness.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Sections/State 2025 Updates

- I've updated my locals paradigm at the bottom, not with new rules or constraints but more detailed thoughts on how I tend to judge and how you should try to win my ballot.

- Topic note: obviously this topic cannot be debated as a "general principle", which is my preferred approach to traditional LD. I strongly prefer that the 1AC choose to unconditionally defend UNCLOS, ICC, or both (really, choosing just one is better, although that's just a personal preference), and think it is clearly the "framer's intent" to give the affirmative pre-round rather than in-round flexibility in choice of advocacy. As such, I think it's appropriate for me to vote on theory arguments introduced by the negative to enforce this norm and deter shenanigans.

- MSHSL rules state that LD and PF debaters "should" read oral full source citations, while all debaters "must" be able to provide written full source citations: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-2025-debate-rules-and-policies.pdf. My understanding is that the word "should" typically denotes a recommendation, as opposed to shall/must which imply a mandate (see, e.g.: https://www.rpharmy.com/blog/should-shall-must-interpreted). Accordingly, I will not be voting on the MSHSL full source rule until this ambiguity has been resolved.

- That being said, author qualifications are an important aspect of evidence comparison, and I encourage you to raise this as a substantive, rather than procedural, issue.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

• I have at times had a pretty extreme neg bias this year (2024-25), and this mostly comes down to me likely being stricter when it comes to rebuttals than most judges, and in particular when it comes to impacts and weighing. The 1AR and 2AR need to extend everything necessary for your offense to function -- identify a harm in the status quo, tell me why it's bad, tell me why affirming solves (or go for deontological offense). On every component of this story, you should be comparative where necessary -- tell me why your offense outweighs your opponent's, why the reasons you do solve are stronger than the reasons you don't, etc. The negative needs to do this as well, but given the nature of LD speech times, it's much more likely that the neg ends up with some piece of uncontested offense.

  Take a standard affirmative argument on the wealth tax topic, that it would raise substantial revenue that would be put towards social programs. Sometimes the affirmative blows past solvency, not explaining why the amount of revenue raised outweighs the negative fiscal impacts from administrative costs, capital flight, etc. Sometimes the affirmative blows past the impact, just saying "trillions will be spent on social programs" without explaining why that matters or why that's a more important internal link to poverty than a loss of wages and jobs. In these rounds, unless I think the affirmative is beating the neg on every one of these arguments, the threshold for "the aff wins X but the neg wins Y, there's no comparison between X and Y so it's at worst a wash, I vote neg on Z" is a lot lower.

  For example, compare the following extensions:

  "Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade."

  "Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade, this comes from a model that assumes a 15% avoidance/evasion rate based on European studies which already accounts for their solvency takeouts."

  The first gives me little to work with which spells trouble if you drop a solvency takeout, while the second drastically lowers the threshold for aff responses to solvency takeouts.

  So to win my ballot, first, extend impacts. Don't just leave it at "affirming solves democracy / climate change / economic inequality / etc.", give explicit reasons why these things matter. I won't do that for you. Second, weigh. Weighing is not just extending your impact and saying it outweighs on magnitude/probability, it requires comparative analysis between your offense and your opponent's. These two are really important -- there have been several rounds where I voted neg but thought a 2AR that spent about 20 extra seconds extending their impact and doing explicit comparison would have cleanly won. Finally, you'll likely need to collapse more. It's rare that the 2AR goes for two pieces of contested AC offense and I think that was a good idea -- more often it means you're skimping on necessary extensions/weighing, dropping line-by-line responses, or undercovering the NC, unless the neg has made major errors or you are significantly more technical than they are.

I am a parent judge - my 2nd year judging - I prefertraditional LD.

Request to both the participants - please speak slowly & clearly - do not spread- you have done hard work preparing your argument - make sure others can listen and understand it.

Request to Aff participant - please call out the resolution being debated before you start your Aff argument.

Have a healthy debate folks.

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

1. I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
2. Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
3. Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
4. @ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

1. tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
2. However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
3. The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
4. Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
5. I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
6. I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

1. Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
2. Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
3. Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
4. This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
5. If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

1. I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
2. Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
3. Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

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 1/11): 43

Aff winning percentage: .535

("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. "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 border security to "Stanford." "According to Professor Dirzo of Stanford" (yes, he is THE expert on how border controls affect wildlife) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Stanford" and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League or equivalent scholars. I've never heard an "according to the University of Arizona" citation from any of you even though that's the institution doing the most work 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.

UPDATE FOR NATS: Congratulations for making it to nationals! Have fun and do your best.

I have never judged BQ before, but I am a relatively competent individual (hopefully) and understand the format fine. I am still, however, getting used to the structure of the format. You should assume I am applying to my BQ judging thought process anything in my paradigm that is logically applicable to BQ.

This tournament pulls together an eclectic mix of localities. Please be understanding of differences in norms and accommodate each other in good faith. The emphasis I place on accessibility will be even stronger at this tournament.

Yes, I want to be on the chain. email:doddsbw1@gmail.com

PLEASE HAVE FUN! debate is fun :) engage in practices that benefit our community and represent it well. Debate is an activity in which many, myself included, have found their passion--use your common sense and leave debate better than you found it.

TL;DR: I am a tech/flow judge. Weigh. Be accessible.

I’m the LD coach for Minnetonka High School. I did debate all 4 years of high school on the Minnesota circuit, mainly. Only competed circuit like once a season. I attend George Washington University and am studying economics and international affairs---I mention this because you can assume I have a greater than 0 amount of prior understanding of these concepts.

Alright, now onto the actual paradigm. General stuff at the top, circuit stuff at the very bottom.

If you're a novice and I am judging you

LD Novice Guide: A little cheat sheet/glossary for speech times, flow structure, case structure, and general debate terms.

General notes

I am definitely tech>truth, and I prefer good argumentation>presentation. Don’t be monotonous or spread at locals, but otherwise be as technical and use as much jargon as you want. You can assume I have some topic knowledge, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your arguments clearly. If I have no clue what you're actually arguing, my threshold for voting against the arg is low.

You need to explain the implications of CX concessions, drops, turns, etc. If you make an argument, don't expect me to implicate it for you. Rounds are very hard to decide when the debaters are so wrapped up in the line-by-line that they fail to explain the implications of the line-by-line.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE extend specific cards and warrants if your opponent reads a generic block against them! A huge missed opportunity I see all the time in all divisions is debaters responding to generic blocks/arguments without realizing that their original contention contained a card/sentence/warrant that accounted for or had an embedded response against the block. Be specific, be nuanced, and be surgical.What separates a good and a great debater is the extent to which they're able to be specific and nuanced. Debaters who rely on broad strokes instead of surgical nuance will almost always lose to debaters who know and can explain the specific mechanisms of arguments.

On the MN circuit, please keep it relatively trad. I will err heavily on the side of trad norms, so be circuit-y at your own risk. Be accessible, please.

A walkthrough of my decision making process:

1. Evaluate which framework to use and any other constraints like burdens or contentious definitions.
2. Look at the articulated offense under these frameworks.
3. Look at the defense on said offense; this helps me determine risk of offense.
   
   
4. Evaluate the weighing done on this offense under the framework (s).
5. Make my decision based on who has the most offense under the framework.

I place an emphasis on good, explicit weighing. If you don’t weigh you won’t get my ballot.

Some people that have influenced my understanding of debate (too lazy to link their paradigms so just look them up lol)

-Raymond Zhang: coach freshman and sophomore year, learned the basics from him

-Sam Anderson: judged often by him and agree w his paradigm

-Nick Smith: judged by him a lot and agree w his paradigm

SPEAKER POINTS

I'll default to somewhere between 28-28.5; points will go up or down from there.

Things that will get you high speaks:

-Any kind of turn, but especially impact turns

-Not using any analytics--don’t just read a card as a block without explaining the implications

-Being extremely clear where you are on the flow

Circuit Pref Shortcut:

LARP/Trad-1

T-2

Neg Ks-3

Simple phil-3

Theory-4

K affs/tricks/phil that you don’t even understand and are just spitting out because you found an overcomplicated Levinas FW-Strike

Unless otherwise instructed, I default to CI and DTD on theory.

If you are using fiat to get out of neg offense, you should make some sort of justification for your version of fiat-fiat comes in all shapes and sizes and interpretations.

I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 17 years, coaching for 11, and this is my fourth year in Minnesota.

PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.

LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.

PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:

1. Debate has time limits for a reason. You are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.

PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.

2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give lower speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).

3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.

4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.

5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.

6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.

Congress:

PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.

Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:

• When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
• For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
• When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"

Some other PO Notes:

• I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
• I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
• I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
• The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
• The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.
• While I think everyone in the round is responsible for the correct pronunciation of names, the PO having elected to run the chamber should be particularly wary of name pronunciations and take the time to learn names and pronunciations before the round in which they are electing to run.

Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up. If you aren't ready to speak, don't delay previous question.

Some specific things I'm picky about: Congress speeches are only 3 minutes long. I think there are two common trends I've seen from some people which don't fit this style of speech well. First of all, with only 3 minutes I don't think it makes sense to have 3 full arguments. I'd much prefer you have 2 well-developed points within your speech rather than 3 shorter and less warranted ones. There's too little time in this type of speech to present that many arguments in a well-developed way without speaking way too quickly or sacrificing other important needs in the speech as well. Also, I think previewing your points in the intro is a waste of time in congress. Sure, a preview is useful in something like a 7 minute extemp speech or a 10 minute Oratory because of the length and depth of the information covered in those types of speeches. In those cases, a preview helps to compact that information and help outline what will be discussed. In congress, with only 2 main points to follow and only 3 minutes to speak, it feels like a waste of time. I'd much prefer you just gave us your agd, link it to the topic, tell us to pass/fail, and then jump right into the first point.

Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.

Don't be cringe

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2025 MN Sections/State:

-This topic is ripe for a theory debate depending on the position of the aff. For theory related to "and/or" in the resolution, it does not need to be structured like a typical theory shell to be the highest layer in the round. If there is warranted analysis why the aff position is anti-competitive and *won* reasons why I should drop the aff because of it, I will vote neg even if there is not a strict Interpretation / Violation / Standards / Voters format. If you can format it like a shell I will be able to follow it easier and preferred but not necessary.

-I thoroughly agree with Sam Anderson's paradigm on the full cites rules for the MSHSL tournament."MSHSL rules state that LD and PF debaters "should" read oral full source citations, while all debaters "must" be able to provide written full source citations: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-2025-debate-rules-and-policies.pdf. My understanding is that the word "should" typically denotes a recommendation, as opposed to shall/must which imply a mandate (see, e.g.: https://www.rpharmy.com/blog/should-shall-must-interpreted). Accordingly, I will not be voting on the MSHSL full source rule until this ambiguity has been resolved."

-I cannot call for evidence. If the implication of a card is contested during the debate, pleaseread the line of the card that supports your interpretation of the card because I cannot make my own judgement of the evidence. If you cannot read a specific line but are confident that I will agree with your interpretation, initiate a evidence challenge immediately after the round concludes. Be sure to specify whether you think the card is 'Distorted' or 'Fabricated'. In the case of an evidence challenge for distortion, I can choose to disregard that evidence in my decision and reduce speaks, if the challenge is for fabrication the result of the round is determined by the success or failure of the evidence challenge.

-If time allows, I disclose after I submit my ballot. This is a stressful tournament, as such Debaters are not required to remain in the room for these comments. Whether or not you choose to stay for disclosure will not impact the result of the round or your speaker points.

-For speed: I can flow the high end of rapid conversational pace and the lower end of true spreading. If you are double clutching while spreading, that is likely too fast. I will give verbal "Slow" or "Clear" instructions if needed.

-I'll vote on pretty much any argument (but tricks might not be arguments).

-Signpost Signpost Signpost. I prefer "Contention x, subpoint x" or other language that describes where in the case I should be looking over the use of only card names when extending arguments.

-Engaging in warrant comparison, describing your argument in straightforward terms, and doing specific weighing between impacts makes me happy. Quality over quantity for warrants. Write my ballot for me and you will get good speaks.

-If you are running non-traditional arguments, please read this

1. Distinct offs are highly preferred to "layified" cases where C1 is a DA and C2 is a counterplan ect.
2. I hold the debater that introduces the non-traditional argument to a higher standard of structure. (i.e. if you read a K, I expect labeled FW, alt, ect. but your opponent can read competition args and I will treat those as perms even if they don't say the word "perm").
3. Overall higher bar if you are reading circuit args into a traditional debater. I think theory, counterplans, and Kritiques are good for debate, but when those strategies are used to confuse and exclude your opponent that makes me sad. Don't be evasive in CX about how arguments function, and I require a more explicit delineation of why pre-fiat arguments come first in order to vote on them. The brightline will be if a typical JV debater who has never seen your argument couldn't follow why your up-layer comes first, you didn't explain it enough.

Who am I:

I'm a debater who graduated in 2018 and got a whopping total of 0 bids and competed in 0 bid rounds. I still enjoyed circuit debate, but this means I am probably not the best judge for late outrounds. Graduated from Lakeville North High School with 4 years of LD and did four years of Parli at the University of Minnesota. That most recent Parli experience shapes a lot of what I think about debate. The other important disclosure is I do not keep up with the circuit generally so I am not going to be as up on the current LD meta.

Things I like:

Engagement! I'm going to like rebuttals that don't just sail past the prior speech based on some prewritten frontlines, but instead address the core issues that the other side brings up.

Respect also goes a long way. Debate is an important space and when people act in good faith it makes me happy.

Analytic extensions. I debated in Parli where carded evidence isn't a thing, I find it much easier to follow a straightforward couple sentence explanation than words cut from different parts of a paper where they might not reach the same conclusion that the powertag on top of the card would suggest they do.

Things I don't like:

Being deliberately difficult to engage with. Dodging CX questions with vague answers when in the next speech you all of a sudden can articulate the thesis of your arguments in very concise and definitive language is not debating, it's running from engagement (and cowardice is a voting issue). Don't rely on your opponent not understanding your arguments well enough so you win.

Relying on the speech doc to get arguments across. My personal belief is that the speech doc is to make sure you don't clip cards and give the judge and opponent something to look back on as a record of what was said, but I see it be used more and more as something that lets debaters artificially inflate their WPM by decreasing the clarity by which they speak and letting the doc pick up the slack. The doc doesn't argue, you do.

Specific arguments:

These are all just preferences. I think saying "I'm Tab" doesn't mean anything, but I will try to intervene as little as possible. That being said here are some mindsets I have coming into the round. Unless otherwise noted I can and will vote on any argument presented, some bars just might be higher than others.

LARPing - This is how I debated most of the time, so I like to see it done well, and a counterplan 2DA neg strat is always fun to watch.

Tricks - If you rely on aprioris or weirdly worded spike that are extended as game over issues I'm probably not your judge. I won't reject you on face but my interp of the burden of rejoinder (the thing that makes dropped args true) is that if the first reading of an argument was shifty or arbitrary, even if none of that argument was addressed in the following speech by your opponent, a new characterization or explanation of that argument is just that: new. This means I am significantly more lenient to responses to blips that get blown up. However, if these arguments are clearly labeled as voting issues the first speech that they are read then a lot of my reservations about this style of debate are alleviated. This goes back to prior notes about avoiding engagement.

Phil - Label everything. I probably don't understand Kant or whoever as well as you do so implicating the important parts of the case as soon as possible make it a lot easier for me to track. I think well done phil can be leveraged well against anything but making these arguments as clear as possible helps me a lot. I think phil is often used by tricky debaters so see above to make sure I don't get sad with you.

Ks - Ks are cool! I didn't read a lot of them in high school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them in front of me. What is does mean is that I don't know the lit and buzzwords are useless. I am familiar with some Cap, Ableism, Anti-blackness, Setcol and Neocol lit bases (in that order) but mostly in a conceptual level not a "I've read the book" level. I know some surface level info about a tiny bit of pomo things, but that please do not assume I know what your buzzwords mean. To make me love you and your K, explain it to me in simple, concise terms. I would prefer a paragraph analytic tag about what it means to find lines of flight than a D&G card cut in language I don't understand. This also applies to alts, I'd really like to know what the alt does. If it's a mindset shift, cool let me know. If it's micropol rejection, cool tell me that's what it is. I think the best alts also incorporate post fiat offense i.e read "Endorse Socialist Revolution" in front of me instead of "Interrogate the epistemology of the aff through a lens of historical materialism."

Role of the Ballots- I find it really hard to frame any offense out of the debate. I default to "Vote for who did the better debating. Everything else is just impact weighing." That being said, if you are winning reasons why your role of the ballot is good it make it a lot easier for your impacts to outweigh those of your opponents, but I don't think it moots them entirely absent arguments that the impacts for their RoB don't matter (i.e. conceded fiat illusory claims means without arguments about how fiated impacts have importance outside of the imaginary will let me completely ignore the extinction claims of an aff)

Theory - Multiple frivolous theories are not good, you can read your spec args or whatever theory shell that might be strategic but probably doesn't actually impact the meta model of debate but reading more than one of these just seems like you are reading a lot of low risk uplayering offence that skirts clash in favor of dropped tidbits. I default to Competing Interps, Theory is top layer, no RVIs but my bar for aff getting RVIs is much lower than neg getting RVIs. Condo is on a round per round basis, but multiple condo are probably not the best, PICs can be good or bad, spec is boring.

Non-Topical/K Affs - I used to absolutely hate these, but I most certainly do not now. I think they are a good part of debate and allow people to take back power, so I will absolutely vote for a non-topical aff but see my notes on Ks and K lit. If you happen to be debating an affirmative that is not topical, FW will work if you win it, even if I'm not happy that you read it, but if the aff is disclosed please at least answer some of case. That being said I don't think theory is inherently violent and that means there are smarter interps that don't have to indite the ability of these types of affs to exist in debate but can challenge the specific implementation of a given non-t aff. I.e. must defend fiat but not necessarily resolutional fiat, may not garner offense off a rejection of the resolution (but can off non resolutional things), no Utopian fiat ect. I would also recommend counter methods (and I am a bit partial to the argument that there are no perms in a methods debate) or method piks as long as you actually engage in questions of the affirmative I will probably be happy.

Misc:

Speed - I can listen to you if you are clear. I'd put myself at about 6/10 of top speed, but this being said be careful with blippy args. Not only would I rather hear 2 actually warranted case turns, I probably will not flow half of your twelve point case dump if each of the twelve are only one sentence answers.

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

1. Know what you are talking about. Being well versed in the lit is a great way to make me like you.

2. Jokes. Tournaments are long and can get boring so if I laugh that is a good thing.

3. Be nice.

4. Be organized, if you are all over the place that is a bad thing

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

Make sure to EXTEND your arguments, and please REFRAIN FROM SPREADING

Please send your case to ikrhepper@gmail.com

Have fun. Be yourself!!!

Thanks :)

TLDR; Be a good person, clash matters a ton, you need to extend and tech> truth although I think both have a place in debate, and for the love of god IMPACT WEIGH

HI! My name is Sofia Ishal (She/They) I am an assistant coach at Apple Valley and I did LD debate throughout HS. :)

I am now a sophomore at the University of Minnesota studying philosophy and sociology of law. I consider myself a lay-leaning judge but key technical aspects of debate matter to me.

Most of my debate influence/knowledge has come from my HS coaches: Nick Smith, Cori Roberts, Alharith Dahmeh, Amadea Datel, and Jacob Nails ( Influence in this order) I agree with most of their paradigms so take a look at theirs if you have time :) also shoutout Joshua Bonilla Rivera

I have Judged roughly 150 rounds ranging from Novice, JV, and Varsity LD, worlds schools and four rounds of PF, I have also coached Worlds Schools. I judge mostly local MN debates with a sprinkle of national circuit tournaments ( usually like 2-3 a year depending on how competitive my kids are)

JV/VARSITY LD:

I know a good amount about circuit arguments CPs, K's, spec, theory, etc. just do a clear job extending it and explaining why I should vote on it. with that being said I do not want to see circuit behavior during local tournaments. I am okay with speed, but anything faster than fast conversation may get lost in my flow. make sure that you are not sacrificing clarity for speed because that will not bode well with me. make sure you also lean into the persuasiveness of LD. A persuasive and big-picture 2AR or 2N will do more work to get my ballot than an overly techy 1AR. I have a very good understanding of basic and complicated Phil frameworks just once again make sure you are A explaining it and B extending it and we won't have any issues.

Circuit LD:

If there is an email chain, add me: Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

Same stuff as I have above regarding circuit args, I have not judged a ton of circuit rounds so I would go below your top speed and make sure to develop your arguments further than you normally would.

I won't vote on anything that is not on my flow and I am very unpersuaded by "vote after X speech" args so do not run those in front of me. I really hate abusive rounds, if it is clear your opponent is a first-semester novice and you are reading 10 off against them I am gonna be pissed and tank ur speaks. so please make sure to be accessible.

I think theory has a place in debate, I also think Nebel T is true but if you guys want to have a debate on this I am down. I think one thing that irks me is when theory debates become borderline frivolous and abusive.

(I am stealing this portion from Nick Smiths' paradigm bc I agree with it and I am too lazy to recreate this )

Speed

Nope |------------------X-----------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |----------------X-------------------| Heck ya

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

Tricks

Nope |-X----------------------------------| Heck ya

K's

Nope |------------------X-----------------| Heck ya

NOVICE LD:

at this level of debate focusing on improving your basic argumentation skills and effective communication techniques is the most important thing IMO, you should be genuinely trying to expand your knowledge and just work towards becoming better and I hope I can help you along the way. If you do run anything circuit as a novice (theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it. and even if your opponent can interact with it, I won't be happy, And it will lead to very low speaker points. I will always give a ton of feedback in novice rounds when asked for and will give a thoroughly written RFD

For all:

You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will let you finish your sentence but will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll usually start speaks around 27 and move up based on how the round goes :).

PF:

I have judged four rounds of PF LOL and have a semi-ok(emphasis on semi) grasp on how to evaluate a PF round, same attitude towards tricks and K's I was not a circuit debater... like at all so run any of these at your own risk :)

WSD:

I have coached WSD teams at high-level tournaments so I am familiar with most aspects of the activity. From what I noticed WSD tends to avoid a clash, pls pls pls have a clash, it'll make me so happy :). I will knock during the first and last minute to signify protected time. Makes the extensions of previous arguments clear in rebuttal speeches and stray away from talking fast. Judge instruction in this category is good, tell me when on my flow I should be voting and if you are running a countermodel tell me why its competitve with the prop plan do not just assume I will understand why unless you explicitly tell me. you also need to do voters and weighing. Lastly I think it is important that you engage with the actuallity of the motion and not just side stepping it by picking out small aspects of it. it is WORLDS SCHOOL not LD or PF or policy.

BQ

I did some BQ in high school but not a ton( and not a lot competitively) however having done and coached LD I am apt enough to judge BQ. My big thing is please have a clash and explain clearly link level arguments. In BQ definitions are going to determine a lot in the rounds so make sure you have clear and extended definitions and you should be good.

Disclosure:

(For Southern Quals I will not disclose per NSDA rules )

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it, and I will write extensive comments on ballots.

Especially if I disclose, but in all cases, please ask me questions, if there is anything I can do to make it make more sense to you, I am happy to do so. please feel free to email me ( with ur coach CCed for safety)

please be respectful to your opponent and stay away from racist, homophobic xenophobic, etc remarks; these will lead you to be dropped!!! Being rude is never acceptable EVER I have and will tank speaks.

I love judging laid-back rounds where the competitors are having fun and are friendly with each other so try to strive for this! debate before anything else is an activity meant to be enjoyed!!

Hello!
I did LD for all of high school and I'm very excited to be your judge!

Progressive/Traditional
I prefer traditional debate, but I will not vote for you down for simply running progressive arguments. I can follow whatever you decide to run. Just make sure to be clear in what you are saying and be organized in your speeches.

Spreading
I can follow spreading, just make sure to be clear. Things will be dropped on the flow if I cannot understand you. Speaking is very important in debate and so no matter how fast you decide to talk, make sure you are clear and organized.

Framework
I will weigh heavily on framework. Show me how your framework outweighs your opponent's. Framework is a foundational part of LD and so there needs to be time spent on it.

Impacts
I will also weigh heavily on impacts. Tell me what is the impact of your case, as well as the negative impact of your opponents. I need to know why what you are arguing matters.

Cross Examination
Cross ex is a crucial part of the round, just make sure you are kind to your opponent. Be firm, but not aggressive. You will lose speaker points for being too aggressive or not letting your opponent answer your questions.

PF
In PF, I look for similar things. Weigh heavily on your impacts and be concise. Extend your arguments and be polite in cross examination. I can handle anything progressive in PF, just make sure to maintain good speaking and argumentation. Tell me why you won the round.

The most important thing is that you have fun and that you show me what you can do as a debater. I have a deep appreciation for debate and so I'm very happy to have the opportunity to judge. If you ever have any questions about a round or want more feedback, my email is sjanda0703@gmail.com Good luck :)

hi!!! I did four years of LD at Lakeville, MN, mainly locals but occasionally circuit. I prefer tech trad stuff, but I'll do my best to evaluate anything besides tricks.

cap at like. 8/10 of your top speed, and put me on the chain:katherine.krogstad@gmail.com. I'll clear you twice, then visibly stop flowing if you don't fix it, and I won't hesitate to make "I couldn't flow that" my RFD. similarly, I stop flowing at >5 seconds over time.

questions are welcome, but postrounding makes me sad :( pls don't do it

have fun, be accessible, and don't be mean. debate is always a game, but please play in good faith.

I average a 28ish for speaks, but if you're rude in any way, you get 26 max.

(locals only. LOCALS ONLY NOT STATE NOR CIRCUIT) if you have good opinions about Formula 1 I'll maybe boost your speaks but the tradeoff is it has to be on the clock :) also a skillful One Direction reference too

I've also decided that I love shenaniganry. If you can read a silly yet topical argument I'll probably love it. Debate is so deeply unserious and really should be treated as such imo. Read the zombies case you wrote as a joke! Tell me the bees are dying as your extinction impact! I will evaluate silly links so long as they are links.

minor things that annoy me: taking forever to set your timer for speeches, long roadmaps (seriously just say NC/AC if that's what it is), saying the opp dropped/conceded something when we all know they responded, lying in the 2a (ykwim)

1 - LARP/trad :)

2 - topical Ks and most theory. I don't like frivolous shells - if you're reading it, it should be a) for legitimate abuses and b) so intuitive that I don't need to parse fifty moving parts to vote on it.

expanding on "what's legitimate": slurs, stealing 30+ seconds of prep, etc. real egregious stuff.

≤3 - nontopical Ks/high phil (pls explain well, I never ran these and don't know buzzwords)

strike me if you're running tricks. I don't like it and I will probably drop you :) that's the wrong kind of shenanigans for me.

Hi!

I'm a parent judge, so please be patient with me. I prefer traditional debate and arguments that relate directly to the topic. You are welcome to speak fast, but if I don't hear what was said, I won't vote off of it. (I would suggest spreading evidence, and slowing down when reading tags).

If there is an email chain, please add me: Xiangdonglin@yahoo.com

Hi, I'm Smiraa! I'm a 4th year varsity debater. Please add me to any email chain at smiraadebate@gmail.com.

LOVE a framework debate, or even if you both agree on framework, I like hearing it extended throughout your speeches in weighing, voters, world comparison, etc. For the love of the gods, weigh under your framework. I want to hear the words "magnitude," "scope," "timeframe," "probability," etc. Also, don't read a framework you don't understand, I promise you I can tell.

Speaking of weighing.... weigh.

Signpost. Please don't make me do mental gymnastics to figure out what contention/card you're on.

I want to hear both analytical warrants and evidence-based warrants. Don't simply read a card to me and call it a day -- I won't give it a ton of weight because I want to hear that YOU know what you're talking about. Properly extending and explaining the warrants (basically just knowing your own arguments) is key.

I will be timing you, but I expect the both of you to also time yourselves and each other. You have all the freedom in the world to respectfully say "That's time" if your opponent is going over. Be mindful of your time and be fair.

Tell me why you win. Do this by having actual clash, weighing WITH framework, and giving me voters. Write the ballot for me.

I can handle pretty fast speaking, but I want to hear enunciation -- if I can't audibly understand what you're saying, I'm not flowing it. Speak clearly. No actual spreading.

Be respectful throughout the debate, if you say anything completely out of pocket (racist, homophobic, etc), you're getting dropped. Just be nice.

For MDTA JV/Novice State, if you run nat circuit-y content (like Ks, obscure theories, etc), you auto-lose. CPs and DAs are all good!

Please ask me any questions you have before the round, and have fun!

(+0.5 speaks if you make a Suits reference)

I am parent Judge and this is my 3rd year of Judging LD and PF debate. I am most comfortable when it is read in moderate speed so i can understand fully so please speak clearly. Please add your arguments with examples and cards. I do not encourage loud expression to each other while debating. Please bring empirical evidence which add your argument.

Experience: I debated LD all throughout high-school, I mainly did traditional. I have been coaching speech and debate for two years. I have been judging for six years.

Speed: It’s fine for the most part as long as you are clear and slow down on taglines and authors. I would prefer that you do not spread.

Disclosure of round result: I won't disclose. Everything will be on the ballot.

Framework: If you're doing an extremely complex, esoteric framework, I expect that you can explain it well. If you can’t explain the arguments you shouldn't be running them. Please be sure to slow down on tags. Please have clear impacts. Even if framework gets conceded at the beginning of the round I still want to see how it interacts in the debate. I will never evaluate a framework that validates oppression, discrimination, death etc.

Evidence/Contentions: Make sure you have a strong case with warrants and impacts.

Extending: Make sure you are extending your warrants and impacts and explaining what you are extending. It needs to be clear what you are extending/where on the flow you are at.

• I am a parent volunteer and new to judging.
• I appreciate clear and slow delivery - if I can't understand you because of your speed, you will not win.
• Please be clear and concise in your final rebuttals so I know your main points and your answers to your opponents arguments.

Refer to me as “judge” and/or with gender-neutral pronouns please.

Put me on the email chain: cierraxphillips@gmail.com

About Me:

I’m Cierra (she/they), an honors pre-law student at the University of Minnesota. I was a varsity Lincoln-Douglas debater and captain for Rosemount High School, MN (Class of '22). I had debated for four years with experience in both traditional and circuit debate.

Overview:

Any exclusionary or discriminatory rhetoric will not be tolerated. I CAN and WILL shut down the round.

General Preferences:

SIGNPOST!!!

NO POST ROUNDING OR I'LL DOCK SPEAKS.

Trigger Warnings — Use them. It's so easy and avoids unnecessary conflict and trauma.

Speed — I’m fine with speed as long as it is equally accessible for your opponent. Don’t use it as a strategy to overwhelm competition, that destroys education and fairness.

Cross Ex (CX) — Be kind and ask questions that allow for answers. CX isn’t for grandstanding. Refer to your opponent by their position (i.e. Aff or Neg), not assumption of pronouns or name. Let’s make this educational not confrontational.

Tech>Truth — Debate isn’t for me to assert my personal bias or opinions; therefore, I vote off of the flow. Clearly extend arguments with explanations (i.e. perms, turns, etc). If you don’t explicitly state this, I have no reason to alter the flow in your favor. I will consider the point dropped. Again, I want to minimize my participation to a spectator rather than a debater when I’m judging.

Framework (FWs) — Extremely important for Lincoln-Douglas debate. The winning FW is how I’m viewing the round. Make sure your extensions and weighing are explicit and explained in terms of applicability and metrics.

Counterplans (CPs) — It’s your debate! I’m willing to hear out a good (emphasis on actually “good”) CPs!

Kritiks (Ks) — Same as a CP. Hell yeah! Always a fun time.

Disads (DAs) — Same as Ks and CPs. The basics of debate in my opinion, whether explicitly stated in a case or not.

Theory — Calling out in-round abuse is totally valid and I’m willing to vote down the debater in extreme cases, but the argument more often. If it’s disclosure theory however, you’ll have to argue pretty hard for it. I find it extremely dumb in most cases.

Topicality — Better have a good argument. I’m a strong believer in fiat as long as it isn’t abusive.

Tricks — Don’t. I’ll legitimately dock speaks.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Take deep breaths and drink some water. You got this.

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

TLDR: Debate should be about having fun and learning. Debate what you want but nothing matters to me until you explain why it should.

Round Framing:

"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

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. Do this to increase your team's speaker points by +.5 pts.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will be sad. This should not discourage you from asking, but instead I hope it forces you to consider what they highlighted before the round, but were not able to read.
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: Giving up large (Vibe check @20%) amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make "The Point" of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the position and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have clicked save. If it takes >2m to attach and send the email, you should count that as prep time.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line. (You should still explain what arg you are referencing ie: "They say the economy is strong in their 1st card on econ, Timothy 1820, but our williams 1821 card shows that the economy is really weak in the horse market!!!"
• I think you should send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

• De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
• Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list, but will bring up specifics through feedback told or written after the round.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects how I should evaluate the impacts, which would bereally good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, please use specifics as to how you think my evaluation of it should effect the whole position or ballot. I will not use the unhighlighted portions of your cards for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. Unique but comprehensible standards that aren't just bland limits and ground would be really nice.

I default to competing interpretations (Offense > Defense), but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (meaning >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, but I think intervention when the arguments you want me to vote on have not been continued throughout the round. I probably won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Negatives shouldn't go for a 5 minute 2NR from one barely highlighted NC card without a lot of additional explaination. Affirmatives shouldn't go for their :10s 2AC condo bad arg without a lot of additional explaination.

Emphasize key arguments, and do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author's claims.

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Interpretation of the Topic, Definition, Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but substantially more robust on your interpretation of the Topic and your voters.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact.

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency.

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt.

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

In case you are wondering….

Hello, My name is Julie Ritz-Schlaifer. I am a licensed family law attorney and trained mediator, and a Past President of Minnesota Women Lawyers. During the 2023-2024 season, I was one of the debate coaches for Minnetonka High School, helping 3 students qualify for Nationals and the LD team win the Minnesota Debate Teachers Association's Challenge Cup.

I earned both of my degrees, BA summa cum laude in Speech Communications and JD, from the University of Minnesota, where my youngest son, Miles MHS23 is attending. Go Gophers! And this past Fall, I ran for Plymouth City Council, Ward 3.

I am a former high school speech and debate student from Watertown, SD, where I had the good fortune to learn from the legendary Donus D. Roberts (ddr to his students). As a senior, I qualified for Nationals with my original oration “The Lie," and competed at the National Forensic League Tournament in San Francisco in both original oratory and policy debate. I placed second in original oratory at the Nat qualifier as a junior. While in college, I served as Blake High School's Assistant Debate Director/Coach with esteemed Coach Greg Dawson.

If you speak too quickly, I will not understand your arguments or evidence and cannot base my decision on what you have said. Debate is about persuading the judge, which should be your main focus as you speak. Be organized in your speech presentations and rebuttals. And please be cordial to your opponent and fellow congressional competitors, especially during cross, even when you clearly disagree with each other and may have the advantage. The ability to disarm an argument with a smile on your face as you advocate for your contention using credible evidence in a way that compels a decision in your favor, can be a game changer in any debate round and in life.

My name is Alary Schmitt. I did Congressional debate and a variety of different types of speech throughout high school (mainly a variety of interp, but I also did some public address and extemp); now I coach Congressional Debate for Edina High School and judge. I use they/them or he/him pronouns and am nonbinary & transmasculine; I prefer neutral or masculine titles, so Mx. or Mister both are preferred over Miss or Mrs.

General notes: I try to write as many comments as I can, but I often spend more time listening to your speech than I will writing things down. Also, if any comment I give you contradicts the advice your coaches give you, then take your coach's advice before mine.

For judging Congress:

I love good authorships or sponsorships. Please give me a good authorship or sponsorship. I like them more than rebuttals or crystals. Frankly in some ways I think they're harder since you set the tone of the debate. Please please give me a good author or sponsorship speech.

This is a pet peeve but please make eye contact with me/your other judges/your fellow reps. (Preferably your fellow reps/the other judges; I don't actually like making eye contact, I just like knowing that you're looking around instead of staring down at your legal pad/laptop).

PO: I love POs. Presiding officers will get great ranks from me personally. Don't be biased towards your team or your friends (I will notice). If you are good at precedency and recency I will love you forever. Leadership will also get high marks from me (this applies to you even if you're not presiding; I will notice if you're taking charge of docket coordination and it will make me think favorably of you).

Questioning: If you are too long you will get ranked down from me. Please at least let the person you're asking questions ANSWER. That said, the more questions the better and the more I'll like you.

Other things I enjoy and will rank higher: impacts, linking, a good AGD, and signposting.

I competed in policy in high school and in NDT for four years in college. However, my high school years were 1981-85, and my college years were 1985-89. Since that time, I coached national level policy debate from 1992-2007, and then retired for 13 years. From 2020 through 2023 I have been coaching LD for Edina HS. I have also been a labor and employment lawyer (representing employers) since graduating from law school in 1992.

I believe debate is a verbal activity. I will flow your speeches and will yell clear if I cannot understand you. If I yell clear, slow down and ensure that I am tracking your speech. I will not flow based on your speech doc. I will consult the speech doc if there is a dispute about what evidence says.

Given my policy history, my default evaluation is policy in orientation. However, I'm more than willing to evaluate a debate based on a philosophical framework or a kritical/in-round framework. I am not a big fan of tricks debate, as I apply a Toulmin-style evaluation of arguments and expect a claim, data and warrant, and in my experience a lot of tricks debate arguments lack the data and warrant elements of a Toulmin argument. However, I do judge the debate based on the flow, and I've certainly voted on a lot of theory arguments in my time.

I think debate is a wonderful activity and I value everyone's contribution and participation. As a result I will react negatively to any conduct or argumentation that devalues or diminishes debaters. If you're rude, nasty or mean, expect me to reduce your speaker points. If your rudeness or nastiness is related to gender, race or some other protected characteristic, expert me to reduce them a lot.

I love to watch debaters having fun. It's a great activity. Try to enjoy it.

Be Clear. If I can't understand you, it doesn't matter what you've said. That's your responsibility as a debater. I will tell you if I can't understand your rate of speaking. The arguments themselves matter more than the quantity of the arguments in the round. If you are unable to explain your arguments, having more on the flow doesn't help.

Be nice. That's everyone's responsibility. We are a communications activity, as well as a community of people who have different experiences and perspectives. It's important that we all be respectful of each other, regardless of whether we agree with each other's arguments.

Sharing cases/e-mail chains: I do not support this trend. I believe it hurts the development of fundamental skills which are detrimental to the activity and hence to the debaters as participants. You will not be penalized you if decide to share information--that's your choice. However, I will not allow extra time in the debate to exchange information. You can either exchange info before the debate starts, use prep time or speech time but I will not allow additional time off the clock to facilitate exchanges.

Time-keeping: It is one of the jobs of the judge to keep track of speech and prep time. Debaters are free to time their own speeches and prep time but know that the judge is the ultimate determiner of how much prep and speech time is used.

For the novices:

• I'm a senior at Edina High School. I judge novices sometimes, but don't be surprised if you see me debating.
• Run whatever you want. I'm good for CPs, DAs, phil (I especially like phil & framework debate) whatever, as long as I believe that your opponent - a fellow novice - can reasonably understand the argument. You probably need to lay-ify/reformat arguments that are very circuit-oriented, and I'll probably give your opp some leeway if they don't know the exact tech of how these positions are answered.
• I vote on the flow and try to intervene as little as possible.
• Fast conversational speed is fine.
• You need to extend warrants, if not for cards at least for contentions and frameworks. Otherwise I don't have the argument as extended and will be highly receptive to your opponent telling me that I shouldn't evaluate it.
• PLEASE WEIGH! New 2AR/2NR weighing is fine. Most novice rounds are irresolvable because neither side weighs or gives me any kind of judge instruction. I can't connect the dots for you. If you are losing on the line-by-line, you still have a *significant* chance of winning if you can explain to me why the one or two arguments you're winning OW the others under the FW.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

Parent Judge

No spreading

Only experience is with novice trad debates

Be respectful and polite to your opponent

Hey, I'm AJ (he/him). I debated in LD for 2.5/3 years in high school, although my focus and passion was always in speech, particularly OO and Info. Because of this, I tend to value traditional debate, I was never too into the circuit-y stuff. My PA speech background leads me to put extra value on framework and weighing over everything else. I'll be closer to your standard lay judge than a true former debate kid judge.

Framework - The most important aspect of the debate. Real world debates require proper framing to get anything out of them. Competitive debate should be no different. Tie your arguments back to framework and we'll all be better off.

Signposting - Please

Speaker Points - Eloquence and clarity matter a lot, it's the OO in me.

Spreading - Never really cared for, but add me to an email chain (ajtabura@gmail.com) if you're going to do that

Tech>Truth

Theory - Fine, but you'll have to explain things to me like I'm clueless (I may be in some cases). I find theory that makes debate inaccessible to other debaters cringe.

Voters - Please

Weighing - Very important

Weird Specific Things:

I work in the public transportation/urban planning world so any argument surrounding infrastructure is +.

Presentation matters to me to a certain extent. Debate is just as much an activity that teaches public speaking skills as it is one that teaches argumentation. Confidence, clarity, and eloquence go a long way for me. Presentation will never single-handedly win you the round, but it will help me better understand your arguments and will earn more speaker points. I give low-point wins begrudgingly.

I have a hard time controlling facial expressions, so don't read into them too much - they can mean anything. Just keep on debating! :)

Overall, make sure you're respectful and mature and we'll all be fine.

Currently coach of Minnetonka High School and Eden Prairie High School

Hey Y'all I love weighing and extentions and plzzzzzzzzzzz signpost for me.

Ive done circuit for 1 year for LD. Done 2 years of LD, 2 years in other formats, and also 1 year in Congress

LD - Make sure to sign post when speaking. Use weighing mechanics to weigh impacts. Clearly explain framework and why your fw matters. If you don't signpost while doing your rebuttal I will drop it.

• Idk lately why a lot of debaters don't link their case back to their fw.
• Also weighing too duh????
• Signpost plz so I don't get confused lol
• Tech>Truth

If I yell out clear 3 times I will stop flowing

Circuit LD - Plans, Disads, CP, K and Theory only. I will not vote on tricks arguments.

Plans,Disads,CP>Theory>K>Other things

I will vote you down for any Tricks

Congress - Speeches must be clear and concise. The only way you will get a good placement if you actually have clash.

*Little rant: I don't know why nobody in congress have clash. This is a real debate hence you would need some clash. Don't just go up and say your side without talking about the other sides points.

How I vote on congress. Argumentation/Content>Speech points/Quality>Quality of Questions> Following Procedures

Email chain send to trinh120@umn.edu

Alt email send to Nolan.nhantrinh@gmail.com

Not a parent

Debate: Make your contentions obvious, don't spread, and don't be an offensive/abusive idiot. I believe that theory (especially disclosure theory) is counterproductive to the debate community and if you run it you will lose my ballot.

Please send your case to my email so that I can pre-flow the round: sasharathkespeech@gmail.com

Speech: If you are not memorized, I will always rank you below someone who has done the work of memorization. In PA, I am looking for well-structured speeches with a good balance of analysis and evidence. Performance quality matters with tone, hand gestures and overall confidence, and while jokes are fun, they are not necessary to win my round. In Interp, I am looking for well defined characters, clear blocking, and a speaker who is fully immersed in their performance.