Farmington Invitational
2023 — Farmington, MN/US
Friday Novice/JV Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideKiernan, (she/her) ☺️
Quick little about me:
- I've been involved in debate in one form or another most of my life, I believe it is such an amazing opportunity and I am so glad you are participating in it!
- I’m a junior at Central High School (class of '26!), and it will be my 3rd year debating at Central, 6th total.
- I am a coach for Hidden River MS.
- My email is kiernanbaxterkauf@gmail.com if you need it for any reason, I’m always happy to answer questions.
Middle School Judging:
- Middle school debate is for you all to have fun and learn! if you have any questions at any point ask them and I will always try my best to help, debate can be stressful and confusing sometimes and I want as many people as possible to have a good experience, and my job is to facilitate that!! also just like a general rule of thumb, be nice to each other ☺️
- Yes, I am aware MS kids don't really read paradigms--- it's fun to write though!
High School Judging:
- IP-specific: I am a varsity debater on the topic, and I am pretty in-depth on a lot of topic literature. However, please explain your arguments!! I will probably know things like acronyms, etc.
- Please say "counterplan" not "cp" It just doesn't work with my brain. I am serious haha.
- all my middle school stuff applies here, just be nice :)
- The top line is that I am here to watch and judge you all, and whatever you want to run in front of me is perfectly okay. Unless you are running really obscure stuff, you can assume I will know what you are talking about. I am fine with K’s/Kritikal Affirmatives, you need to explain why your performance is important and what that means. I am here to support you all; you do not have to adapt to me.
- speed is fine, I can flow you.
- With that in mind, running racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments is not going to get you far in debates, and you are not going to win this one if that’s the path you choose to go down.
- Everything from the middle school paradigm applies here! Since I am a high school student, I assume that most/all the teams I judge are novices, and I am always here to help! + Final note: Keep in mind that I am a high school student. My opinions may not always be correct, and I am not set in stone on anything, but I know a fair bit about debate, and I am always here to help!!
****TLDR: have fun, be nice, and try your best!****
Debate Biography
I debated at Lakeville HS (MN) in LD shortly after the turn of the millennium. In effect, I only debated on the national LD circuit for one year. I was a freelance LD coach and judge for numerous schools in the mid-to-late aughts and early 2010s as an undergraduate and graduate student. I was instructor at the National Symposium for Debate for a number of years. In various ways, I was exposed to Policy Debate and am conversant in its requirements, conventions, etc.
Notes on Approach to Judging
I'm generally open to the debate that the debaters want to have. I view debate as a fairly open-ended activity where the participants have an unusual degree of power over the rules and conventions. That said, it may be helpful to know some ground rules I'll default to and dispositions I'll divulge.
1) My understanding of Policy Debate theory and practice probably isn't terribly cutting edge. You'll have to carefully fashion a flotation device for me if you want to wade too deep into the troubled sea of debate theory. While I have no problem voting on such theory in principle, please know that I prefer debates involving a significant element of something besides a metadebate. If I vote on theory when the violation wasn't really, well, harmful, the speaker points may reflect as much.
2) Given my general approach, planless ACs are fine, provided the aff explains how their position, if defended, affirms the resolution.
3) I have an appointment in a Philosophy department, which may indicate something about my default thinking.
4) I'll only vote on something if a debater gives me something I can recognize as a reason to do so. If A makes some argument that wasn't comprehensible to me the first time A made it (or, really, isn't comprehensible after the relevant doc is shared), B drops it, and A extends it as a voter, sorry---can't take it into account.
5) I presume Aff because affirming is harder. But I'm willing to hear debates about which way presumption ought to go (however...aesthetically unappealing those almost always are).
Happy to answer questions, however much of my own ignorance they may reveal.
Background and Contact Information
I debated policy for Rosemount High School from 2016 to 2020 and have been judging since 2020. My undergraduate studies were in economics and political science. For Lincoln-Douglas or Congressional debate, see respective sections at the bottom; all other sections (excluding this section and "Important Points for In-Person Tournaments") apply only to policy debate.
Please include huangdebate@gmail.com on the email chain.
For any questions, speech document requests, or other communications, please email huang.charles.j@gmail.com. I am also happy to answer pre-round questions in the room. This is your chance to clarify my views, so please ask if there's any uncertainty (or if you just didn't get to carefully read my admittedly rather long paradigm).
Debate should be an inclusive, accessible, meaningful, educational, and enjoyable activity for all. I encourage you to do your part to make that possible. If there's anything I can do to help make that happen, either before or during the round, please let me know.
Judging Approach
I am a predominantly technical judge: I seek to decide the round based on the arguments presented and extended through the final rebuttals and the technical execution thereof. I try not to let personal predispositions, especially those concerning argument types, interfere with my decisions. Technical execution of argumentation matters generally matters more than "truth," though I do value logical soundness and high-quality evidence.
When deciding rounds, I identify what the key questions on the macro level are and then attempt to resolve them by looking to key controversies on the micro level. I look heavily to what's said in the final rebuttals, including to frame the key questions and to determine which side prevails on the key controversies. At every step, I try to exercise restraint when possible, but poor argumentation, poor execution, and/or illogical arguments make it harder for me to do so. To prevent me from having to decide a round based on my own contrived analysis, you should provide judge instruction in your last rebuttal and engage in clash with your opponents on the warrant level. I will turn to default assumptions only if there is not even a hint of in-round controversy over it. The barrier for overcoming default assumptions is claiming otherwise and beating any relevant contestation, which is a lower bar than having to convince or persuade me otherwise.
Positions and Strategies
– I am just as happy to evaluate a kritikal/planless affirmative as a policy affirmative. I won't automatically vote on framework, don’t hold kritikal/planless affirmatives to an abnormally high standard, and don’t necessarily think they’re inherently cheating. I enjoy judging both K v. K and K v. Framework rounds. Whether fairness is an impact, whether debate is a game, etc. comes down to which side wins that part of the debate. My voting record in rounds with kritikal affirmatives is pretty even.
– I enjoy judging policy v. policy, "clash of civilizations," and K v. K rounds about the same. I also enjoy judging rounds that come down to theory more than most judges probably do.
– If what I ran as a debater is important for you to know:
– On the affirmative, I ran “big-stick” and “soft-left” affirmatives with plans and frequently made theory the 2AR.
– On the negative, I went for kritiks, topicality/framework, and counterplans/disadvantages each about a third of the time.
– I am probably more willing to vote on topicality (against affirmatives with plans), theory, procedurals, and plan flaws than most judges. I often think teams forgo an easy ballot in their favor by not extending theory into their last rebuttal.
– If the other team straight-up drops any topicality or theory argument that you have previously indicated is a voting issue, simply saying "they dropped X; that's a voter," is usually sufficient to warrant a quick and easy ballot in your favor.
– If the other team has woefully undercovered or misanswered a topicality or theory argument, you probably don't need to spend much time here either and expect to win. Even though it's often advisable to spend either zero or five minutes of your final rebuttal on topicality or theory, if you are contemplating going for such arguments in your last rebuttal but are worried I won’t buy your topicality or theory, consider spending enough time on it to potentially win if I agree with your assessment that it's been undercovered or misanswered (probably about 30–60 seconds) while still leaving time to cover substantive positions.
– How well you justify your interpretation—not what I agree with or think is sensible—matters: I am just as happy to vote for zero conditional advocacies as I am to vote for 10 conditional advocacies.
– It’s pretty hard for me to flow when you speed through your blocks. This is true for both blippy points and super long paragraphs. It’s also hard to evaluate a bunch of blippy standards from both sides without comparative analysis. You will benefit from reading blocks slower, not just rereading your standards as extensions, doing line by line, analyzing the specific round, and impacting out your points.
– Some default assumptions I make if uncontested: (1) jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote on topicality; (2) topicality debates can be about which team defends a more “true” interpretation of the resolution and need not center around which interpretation makes for a “better” topic; (3) reasonability is about the reasonability of an interpretation, not the reasonability of the plan/purported abuse; (4) I focus on what interpretations justify over any claims of in-round abuse; (5) I will default to judge-kick losing counterplans; (6) almost all theory violations can be reasons to reject the team.
– I appreciate a risky, unconventional, or tricky strategy. I think such an approach is often your best bet when you’re quite behind on the flow toward the end of the debate.
– Positions and actions that disrupt the very fabric of argumentative and personal decency clearly cannot be accepted. This includes variants of "trigger warnings bad." Expect to lose if you say insensitive things or engage in insensitive conduct that has the potential to make others in the room feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
– I understand Congress, legislative procedure, and Congressional politics better than most. I don't really think this should affect your inclination to run (or not run) a Congress-related position in front of me, but I'll let you make what you will of this.
Substantive Things You Should Do
– Providing judge instruction on how to decide the round is perhaps the easiest way to increase your chances of winning in front of me. Such judge instruction should be cohesive of all operative flows in the final rebuttals. I generally suggest including this in an overview in your final rebuttal.
– Comparatively analyzing warrants is the next-best way to increase your chances of winning. In reasonably close debates, my RFDs almost always eventually come down to which team better analyzed and explained their warrants on a key controversy that a key question hinges on.
– When reading kritikal arguments, you should explain your thesis and theory clearly. You should give me a clear understanding of your position for me to vote for it (otherwise I may think you simply haven't fulfilled the burden of proof), and you should not assume I have extensive knowledge of your theory or literature beyond or even from exposure from debate. I think debaters are expecting judges to fill in too many argumentative gaps, and I decline to do so. You should be sure to impact out important substantive controversies on the flow that you think get you a lot of mileage.
– Explaining the theory of the case is important for non-kritikal arguments too. Though the basic argument of a counterplan, disadvantage, or advantage is often more straightforward, failing to explain fundamentally how something works in plain terms lowers the bar for the other side's rejoinder and makes me hesitant to vote for it. I should understand your position(s), and the necessary depth of explanation varies directly with the complexity (and to some extent, my prior unfamiliarity) of the position(s).
– Focusing on and developing a few key points on each flow by the end of the round will almost always help you. Impacting out your key points is especially important in the final rebuttals, which are the main starting points for my decision.
Stylistic In-Round Things You Should Do
– You should slow down a fair bit when when making analytics, reading or extending theory, and explaining dense kritikal theory. More broadly, if you're not reading the text of a card, I would advise against reading/speaking at top speed. I am unlikely to get as good a flow as you desire if your late constructives or rebuttals are almost exclusively read at top speed. I generally do not call “clear” or “slow” if I feel I am getting an inadequate flow of your speech, so you should watch me to make sure I’m following.
– You should send pre-written analytics, especially if you intend to speed through them. I don't have a perfect flow, so if you omit pre-written analytics from the speech document hoping the other team will miss some on their flow, chances are I will also miss some on my flow.
– On each flow, try to do line by line or organize by part (e.g. framework debate, link debate, impact debate, perm debate), especially if the other team has poorly organized their work on that flow.
– The later we are in the debate and the deeper we are on a key controversy, the more useful it will be for you to label your line-by-line responses with subpoints. A list of subpoints is far more flowable than a paragraph.
– Don't ask for marked copies unless you actually think you're going to use it somehow toward your strategy or invoke it in your speeches. You’re certainly entitled to ask for marked copies regardless though. Marked copies need not omit cards not read.
– When referring to me in a speech, you can just say "you" (e.g. “you should vote negative on presumption”). If you are talking to me outside of a speech, feel free to call me Charlie or Charles. There is never a reason to call me "judge" in the second person.
– Avoid unnecessary abbreviations, especially when it forms a nonsense word (like "squo" or an attempt at pronouncing "xap" in referring to cross-applications).
General Things You Should Do
– Be nice, respectful, and friendly to everyone; avoid being unnecessarily aggressive.
– Have fun; perhaps even be funny or throw in a joke or two.
– Start on time and minimize non-prep, non-speech time.
– Please do not label off-case in the document without a name (e.g. "1-OFF, 2-OFF, ..." or "OFF, OFF, ..." or "1, 2, ..." or "DA, CP, K, T")—doing so will result in lowered speaker points. Instead, you should give and use names for your positions (e.g. "Elections DA, States CP, Neoliberalism K, T-fiscal redistribution"). Expect bonus speaker points for exceptionally well-named off-case positions.
– Tag-team cross-examination is fine unless you physically tag your partner.
– Please time yourselves. I don’t flow anything said after time expires. I will not keep time unless required to by tournament rules.
Rare Things That Impress Me When Done Well
– Giving your final rebuttals off your flow, without reading off your laptop
– Ending a final rebuttal super early when you have enough to win
– Demonstrating strong familiarity with your and your opponents' evidence
– Explaining complex kritikal theory or counterplan mechanisms well such that a lay person could understand
– On theory and topicality: clashing on the warrants, contextualizing arguments to the round, improvising your arguments, and not relying on blocks
– Using common sense to help beat blatantly untrue arguments
– Demonstrating a deep (and correct) understanding of the legislative process in Congress
– Using math to support arguments
Evidence and Extensions
– My decisions tend to focus on what is said in the final rebuttals, which means evidence quality usually doesn’t factor in too much. That said, I value evidence quality. If you want evidence quality to be an issue, make it an issue in your rebuttals, and I’ll evaluate it as applicable.
– Evidence quality, first and foremost, is a matter of whether the evidence supports the claim you’re making. Far too much evidence fails on this front. Evidence often does not come close to supporting what debaters try to use their evidence for in the context of a round, but often the other team fails to use that to their advantage. I think indicting evidence simply based on the fact that it doesn’t say what debaters want it to say is a vastly underutilized tool.
– Reading multiple cards that say the same thing almost always seems to be an inefficient use of your time. Extending evidence and comparing warrants is more beneficial. I only flow tags when you read evidence, which means the warrants don’t get on my flow unless/until you put it on my flow in later speeches.
– I almost never read evidence after the round unless there is closely contested controversy in the final rebuttals over what a piece of evidence means. If you want me to read evidence, instruct me to in your final rebuttal and impact out your understanding of the evidence.
– I think good analytics can overcome subpar evidence and logical unsoundness. Having not actively coached or debated for a few years, I think common sense (e.g. sense of scale, discrete versus continuous, contextualizating and inferencing from evidence) and basic knowledge (e.g. about government, economics, world affairs) is often an underutilized tool to beat absurd positions concocted by low-quality evidence.
– Extensions of evidence generally should include at least include the claim and the warrants. If there's contestation on a point, evidence comparison, especially on the warrant level, can be useful. The less work the other team does to answer something, the less work you need to do extending it; for example, if the other team doesn’t answer a flow, you don’t need to extend every card. Overviews can be useful, but you should probably still extend key parts (especially on kritiks). I do not generally give any weight to tagline and shadow extensions.
– Re-highlightings of evidence should be read in a speech—they can't just be "inserted." You don’t have to read or describe in detail a graph, data table, or image you’re inserting, but I think it’s usually helpful to mention what the takeaway should be.
Watching Me
I generally do not call “clear” or “slow” if I feel I am getting an inadequate flow of your speech, so you or your partner should watch me to make sure I’m following.
Aside from that, it may be beneficial to note my physical expressions, but you probably should not let them dictate your strategy. Here are generally what my physical expressions indicate, but I can’t promise one of these might not signify something else:
– If you see that I am not flowing, that may mean you're being redundant and/or not adding anything new onto my flow.
– If you see my hands out, palms up, giving a confused, shrugging gesture, that may mean I'm struggling to flow your speech.
– If you see me nodding my head, it usually means I understand the point you're making, think you're making a responsive point, think you’re making a true argument, or agree with your commentary (e.g. they dropped a particular card). It doesn’t necessarily mean you should go for that argument or focus the round on it.
– If you see me shaking my head, it usually means I think your point is illogical, irrelevant, or otherwise non-responsive, that I disagree with your commentary, or that I think the argument you're making is weak (but again, I'll focus my evaluation on what's said in the debate, not how truthful I think your arguments are). If this is happening while I’m not flowing, it likely means I’m not following your speech.
– If you see me squinting, perhaps with a tilt or angling of the head, it probably means I'm confused by what you're saying or why you're saying it.
– If you see me laughing (and you didn't make a joke), I'm probably laughing at an absurdity in the other team's argument that you're pointing out.
Post-Round Feedback
After giving my reason for decision, I usually don't orally deliver much, if any, unprompted team-specific feedback. I type all my feedback into the online ballot, so I think it's more useful to give you more time to ask questions that are on your mind, and I am eager to take the time to answer and discuss. I'm also happy to email you your team-specific feedback before the end of the tournament—just let me know if so.
Important Points for In-Person Tournaments
Especially if you are sick with COVID-19 symptoms or have recent known or suspected exposure to SARS-CoV-2, please wear a mask.
Please do not make reference to any of my laptop stickers if I have any.
Lincoln–Douglas
I have some experience debating and judging Lincoln–Douglas, but less than I have in policy. Ultimately, I want you to feel comfortable debating the way you are used to and the way you want to. I will do my best to fairly adjudicate the round that is debated in front of me, so I hope you do not feel a need to over-adapt to my policy background. I think I'll be able to follow along just fine.
My overarching judging philosophy for Lincoln–Douglas is similar to that for policy: evaluate the claims presented to me based on the quality of argumentation and technical execution, seeking to limit how any potential personal predispositions on what the debate should look like or what arguments align with my personal views affect the round. The "key questions on the macro level" will probably relate to theory or framework in most rounds. Unless instructed otherwise (and with compelling reason), I will considering pre-fiat/procedural arguments (theory, topicality) before post-fiat/substantive arguments. As for framework, I don't think you need to dwell on it too much if that of both sides is similar. I think "even if" statements are particularly useful in the context of explaining why you win the round even if you lose the framework. Impact calculus is helpful to avoid an RFD that surprisingly concludes one debater wins under the other debater's framework.
A lot of what I have above for policy applies to Lincoln–Douglas too, especially the importance of explanation and comparative analysis of warrants; dropped arguments are true; I am more willing than most to vote on dropped voting issues; I focus heavily on the final rebuttals (crystallization is good), especially judge instruction (i.e. voters/voting issues); how well you argue your theory interpretation matters more than how much I agree with your theory interpretation; and everything in the "How to Win the Round" section.
That said, I realize Lincoln–Douglas is different from policy. I will try to be sensitive to the norms of Lincoln–Douglas debate, but I am likely more open than most judges to features of "circuit debate" such as kritiks, disadvantages, and counterplans. I do not have the expectation that affirmatives will have plans but am certainly open to plan-based affirmatives. I suspect I may be more amenable to "tricks" since I do not yet have a good sense of what a trick is and may see what you know to be a trick as a clever argument. If an argument gets on my flow, it should get on your flow; if it's on your flow, you should answer it.
After reading the paradigms of many other LD judges, here are some other things I didn't think I needed to include but might be useful for you to know:
– You should provide orders before your speeches and signpost throughout your speeches.
– I focus on the flow and less so on delivery. That said, your speaking needs to be clear and audible. Persuasive delivery can marginally benefit your speaker points.
– Speed is certainly fine, but attempting to rely on a drastic disparity among your and the other debater's speed is frowned upon and unlikely to win you the round. I am just as happy to judge a round with both debaters spreading as one with both debaters speaking at a conversational speed.
– I do not care on which side you sit or whether you sit or stand.
– Just take however much prep time you need and report how much time is remaining after you're done. Unless you don't have a timing device, don't expect me to tell you when you've used a certain amount of time for prep.
– You are welcome to ask questions to the other debater during your prep time. You can take prep time to let the other debater finish responding to a question. You can also take prep time to finish responding to a question asked to you. Cross-examination cannot be substituted for additional prep time.
– I am less familiar with the norms around disclosure in Lincoln–Douglas, so I may be more of a wild card on disclosure theory debates. For either side in a disclosure theory debate, you're going to have to be super explicit about vague concepts like pre-tournament preparation or research burdens and contextualize it to how you practically prepare for tournaments and rounds. Otherwise, my RFD is probably going to sound more arbitrary and contrived than you would like it to be.
– I am thus far unconvinced of the usefulness of underviews, but I will certainly still flow and evaluate underviews like anything else in a speech.
– For theory or topicality, I understand a complete argument to include an interpretation, a violation, standards, and independent voting issue claim (or "reason to reject the argument" point). As generous as I am with theory, I will be far less inclined to vote on what I see as an incomplete theory argument.
– I understand reasonability to be about whether an interpretation is reasonable, not whether the purported violation is reasonable. Feel free to define your reasonability arguments like the latter.
– Here are some terms I found in other judges' paradigms specific to Lincoln–Douglas that I do not know the contextual meaning of well (even after googling them): tricks, LARP, phil, normsetting/norming, permissibility, spike, high theory, frivolous theory (what's the bright line?). If you use terms like these in a speech, please clarify what you understand them to mean. I don't think this means I can't competently judge a round involving any of these, just that I don't know the meaning of the terms themselves.
– Please do not attempt to shake my hand.
– As long as doing so will not delay the tournament, I will disclose my decision, explain my RFD, and answer any questions you may have for me. I will not disclose speaker points before the tournament releases final results.
– If both debaters want to be humored by me, I would be interested in having a round in which we call the sides "Lincoln" and "Douglas" instead of "affirmative" and "negative."
– If you have additional questions on how I approach judging Lincoln–Douglas (and how it may differ from how I approach judging policy), I am more than happy to answer them before your round.
Congress
You may want to be aware that I work in the U.S. Congress and my debate background is almost exclusively in policy. These two things come together to influence how I think about Congress as a debate event, but not necessarily in an obvious way. An oversimplification of what I "want" to see is (1) everyone (especially presiding officers) emulating Congressional procedure and decorum to a practicable extent that doesn't disrupt the substantive nature of the event and (2) non–presiding officers engaging in argumentation that is in-depth and responsive to arguments made previously.
Before I go any further, I also recognize that I have many uncommon, if not straight-up unpopular, opinions. As a member of a panel judging your round, I completely understand that there may be legitimate reasons to not overadapt to the outlier preferences of one judge. That said, I think at least some suggestions I offer below are unlikely to alienate other judges but are very likely to substantially boost my view of your performance.
Proecudure, Practice, and Decorum
I'm not seeking to completely undermine the activity that you all work hard to prepare for and compete in. But I think the chamber should operate more like Congress with respect to procedure, practice, and decorum when doing so is simple, does not disrupt the substantive nature of the event, and does not adversely alter the fundamental educational and competitive nature of the activity.
I specifically suggest that:
– The presiding officer
ahead of votes, clearly state what the question is (e.g. "the question is on the motion" or "the question is on passage of the bill")
announce votes by saying "on this vote, the yeas are x, the nays are y, the bill is (not) passed" or "...the motion is (not) agreed to"
A bill does not fail, and I think that is especially so if the motion to reconsider is not made and laid upon the table.
in announcing the end of a timed period, use the word "expired" instead of "concluded" or "elapsed" (e.g. "the questioning time has expired")
recognize questioners by title and name (e.g. "Senator [name]," not just "[name]")
do not "assume unanimous consent"—I don't know where this comes from and is just wrong
– Non–presiding officers
make the motion for the previous question by saying "I move the previous question" or "I move to order the previous question," NOT "I move to the previous question"
"Move" in this context means making a motion, not a change in position or state, so it should not be followed by "to" as a preposition. It would be more complete to say "I move to order the previous question," but it is common and accepted practice to omit "to order." But omitting only "order" doesn't make sense since it splits the infinitive in a way that misleadingly changes the apparent definition of "move" and completely changes the word that "to" relates to from "order" to "the previous question." Similarly, it would be incorrect for a presiding officer to say "we will now move to the previous question." I suggest the presiding officer respond to the motion as follows: "Is there a second? ... There is. The question is on the motion," then do the vote on the motion.
avoid language that doesn't make sense in a congressional context such as "I urge you to pass/negate"; rather, "I urge my colleagues to votes yes/no" is preferable
refer to legislators in the third person/by name, not "you"
Concision
I think there are a lot of superfluous words spoken out of adherence to custom without any substantive or procedural purpose. I suggest you all refrain from saying needless words, including things like:
– "I thank the Chair"
– "the Chair thanks you"
– announcements of speech time
– "seeing as that was a speech in the affirmative"
– "we are now open to 4 blocks of questioning"
– "we are now in line for a speech in the opposition"
– "legislative session" (there's no executive session, so "legislative" is unnecessary)
– "congratulations to the author" and whatever the corresponding phrase would be if the bill does not pass
Generally, if the round can go on without you saying it, don't say it. At the varsity level, I think presiding officers should be able to assume that everyone in the round knows the format of the round and need not explain what is happening at every stage of the round.
If the presiding officer insists on thanking speakers, the presiding officer should probably be saying "the Chair thanks Senator [name]."
If speakers insist on thanking the chair, that should probably come at the very top of your speech, e.g. "Thank you Mr./Madam President. This bill ..."
Other procedural thoughts
I think if the tournament rules, the NSDA High School Unified Manual, and the NSDA Congressional Debate Guide, are silent on a matter (of which there are many), I think the chamber should turn to seeking to emulate the procedures of the respective chamber in the U.S. Congress (either the Senate or the House of Representatives, depending on which chamber we're sitting as) to a practicable extent.
For example, I think if we're sitting as the Senate, I think senators can and should speed things up (even if slightly so) by asking for unanimous consent. This may likely be the case on motions for the previous question, motions to recess, and the motion to adjourn.
I think the usefullness of less common motions—such as motions to rescind, reconsider, suspend the rules, and others—is more frequent than the customary usage suggests. I would be impressed by someone making such a motion correctly and productively.
Evaluating the presiding officer
In evaluating the presiding officer, I value fairness in recognition, procedural accuracy and clarity, fluidity, concision, and impartiality. Note that this is distinct from "fast, fair, and efficient."
Fairness is the probably the most important thing, but I do not have the multitasking ability to carefully follow precedence/recency and simultaneously fulfill my other judging obligations. If I notice the presiding officer screwing up recognition, the mistake(s) would likely have to be egregious.
Absent glaring fairness issues, procedural accuracy is what I care about the most. This relates to proper execution of parliamentary procedure. For example, I've seen presiding officers make unilateral decisions that I don't think they have the power to do or skip over votes just because everyone appeared to second a motion. These and other common practices are egregious mistakes in my view and may be penalized harshly. Presiding officers should not make up procedure for convenience or alignment with incorrect common practice and should pay close attention to making sure motions are properly made and decided on. Procedural clarity refers to making clear what the presiding officer is doing procedurally, such as making clear what a vote is on,
I value fluidity but not necessarily speed. I think taking a bit of time to let evreryone process what's happening in the chamber is useful. Slowing down recognition during questioning also would be appreciated. Honestly, the more you seem like an (acting) President pro tempore or Speaker (pro tempore)—or at least one whom knows what they're doing—the more highly I will view your performance.
Concision: see above.
I think the presiding officer's role is to facilitate debate, not to push debate forward. Turning to congressional practice, if nobody seeks recognition, I think the presiding officer can and should just sit silently. Nobody wanting to speak is a problem for the legislators for whom making speeches and motions is how they get judged, not for the presiding officer. I think the presiding officer's tone and non-verbal body language should be fairly unchanging.
That said, I think the presiding officer should make appropriate reminders to the chamber as necessary.
I won't penalize presiding officers for ignoring my thoughts here, but I find a lot of presiding officer practices to be too aggressive. I honestly don't really understand why a loud a commanding voice seems to be the norm for presiding officers. The NSDA guide, for example, suggests a "calm, controlled and caring voice." I concur. While in the House, Speakers pro tempore tend to be louder, that's in the context of having 435 members in a large, loud, and rowdy chamber. In the Senate, with only 100 senators and a smaller chamber, the President pro tempore usually speaks rather softly. Though we may not have the luxury of microphones, there are other differences too that I think suggest a calmer tone is appropriate: we have far fewer legislators, we are in a far smaller room, and there is an expectation of silence among those not recognized.
Similarly, I think customary gaveling is often way louder and more frequent than it needs to be, sometimes to the point of it being distracting. But if you are confident that it's important for the speaker, I won't penalize you for loud and frequent gaveling (within reason). I would also be perfectly content if you didn't use the handle to point at people.
If I rank a presiding officer first, they likely would have executed the basic functions of the presiding officer with fluidity, eliminated unnecessary phrases customarily used, and followed at least some of my suggestions in the Procedure, Practice, and Decorum subsection above. Unless all the other contestants were really bad, I am unlikely to rank a presiding officer highly if they do not at least try to adapt a few things for me that other judges are unlikely to care about.
Do not ask me to rank you. Doing so may be grounds for me to assign you the lowest rank possible. I know how to nominally do my job and thingsa ballot on Tabroom.
Substantive things for non–presiding officers
I view the event of Congressional debate as more of a debate event and less of an exercise in emulating politicians, whether in substance or style. That said, nailing down things like procedure and the language of legislating are pluses in my book.
In evaluating non–presiding officers, I value smart argumentation (including on-the-spot analysis and synthesis), strong refutation, argumentative leadership, argumentative originality, well-researched angles, and extemporaenous delivery—roughly in that order.
I value depth over breadth, possibly more than most judges do. Three minutes is very short, especially at the speaking speed of this event. I frequently find myself commenting that I think focusing on two key points, if not one key point, would be beneficial. Similarly, it annoys me when key points are discrete and there's no attempt at relating them together to support the broader conclusion.
In policy, every speech after the first is expected to respond to the other side's arguments. Meanwhile, I think it's a missed opportunity that most congressional floor speeches are pre-written with little reference to or refutation of contrary arguments. These two things influence me to expect refutation earlier than most judges do. Even in the first speech in opposition, I would appreciate at least reference to the opposing side's arguments. By the second speech on each side, I'm hoping for refutation. By the third speech and beyond on each side, I expect substantial refutation.
I strongly believe that amendments are vastly underutilized. I think part of being a strong legislator is not just shooting down imperfect ideas but improving bills to make them more likely to pass and more likely to succeed in their efforts. If you submit and offer a strong amendment, defend it well, and integrate that all into your arguments, I would be very impressed and inclined to rank you first. Yes, the presiding officer can rule an amendment is not germane, but anyone can appeal the ruling of the Chair too.
I'll score and rank based on the arguments you make facially and on whether you made the arguments I thought are strongest, but I do think there's a lack of technical attention in this event. I really appreciate more technical, less policy-based, points, such as sloppy drafting of a bill, an inappropriate agency or inappropriate agency action, conflation of authorization and appropriation, likely unconstitutionality, issues with conflicting laws being declared null and void, issues with effective dates, imprecise language (both in definitions and elsewhere), improper drafting style (within the bounds of the structure of Congressional debate bills), and enacting clauses not adherent to 1 U.S. Code § 101–105.
If you put the last two paragraphs together, yes, I am suggesting that I would appreciate a perfecting amendment with respect to the enacting or resolving clause.
Along similar lines, I have a really hard time understanding why some defensive arguments in opposition are reasons to vote no on the bill. I think the fundamental role of speakers in opposition should lead others to the conclusion that they should voting nayon a bill. Some defensive arguments alone are enough to get there, and some are not, so I think you should not lose sight of that.
So long as your arguments prove why legislators should vote yea or nay, I think an offense–defense paradigm is not particularly suited to this event. I think the fact that I, as a judge, am not making a determination as to whether I should vote yea or nay on a bill based on the points argued before me means that you don't necessarily need to "win" an argument from a rather black-and-white perspective. I would rather you make smart, nuanced arguments than overly simplistic arguments that defeat contrary arguments on paper.
Since I don't get to read your evidence, if you're disputing someone else's evidence-based claims of fact with your own, you need to do some additional comparative work, such as giving me information about both of your evidence when possible and telling me why yours is preferable along a certain dimension (e.g. "their evidence is from an industry-funded website with no peer review, whereas my evidence is preferable because it comes from authors with no conflicts of interest writing in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal").
Much more often than not, I find that time spent on introductions would be better spent on better developing your key points.
Delivery matters to me more in Congress than it would in policy or Lincoln–Douglas debate, but it's nowhere near the most important thing I look for. I think it mainly affects the ethos of your speeches. Delivery is more or less a tie-breaker for me, though there are often a lot of good speakers who are roughly tied in my mind. The most frequent delivery suggestion I make is to vary your elements of delivery, e.g. tone, volume, and pacing.
I would prefer that your speech sound more natural. I don't love it when speeches remind me of the speech event of extemporaneous speaking, though I won't penalize you for this.
Structurally, I don't need you to give a "roadmap" of what your key points are or say when you're moving from one argument to the next. Also, you can better spend your time by making your argument without telling me you're going to make an argument. That all should be clear in such a speech that's only three minutes long and not delivered at a high speed.
If I had a nickel for each time I got confused by someone saying "everything said on the other side flows our way," I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. I now suspect that "flow [a certain direction]" means something different in Congress than it does in policy. If the bill is to increase Social Security benefits and the opposition speakers talk about how it would quickly bankrupt Social Security, and a supportive speaker says "everything they said flows aff," I would then expect an explanation of why bankrupting Social Security is a reason to support the bill. I assume that's not how you all intend to use the term. I would suggest rewording that slightly to avoid overpromising and inevitably underdelivering in my eyes.
This isn't as important for me as I suspect it may be for other judges, but it would be preferable that you vary which side you're speaking on and when in the round you're speaking as much as possible.
The most sensible interpretation of what a "resolution" is given the NSDA rules is that they are simple resolutions of the Senate or the House as opposed to joint resolutions or concurrent resolutions. This procedural nugget might be of substantive utility on some resolutions.
Most frequent critical comments I give (roughly in order)
– Your argument that the bill doesn't accomplish its goals would be bolstered by submitting and offering an amendment to improve its effectiveness
– This speech would've been better served by developing one main point instead of two
– This speech would've been better served by developing two main points instead of three
– Delivery was strong but would be better with greater variance, e.g. with respect to tone, volume, and/or pace
– You would benefit from a clearer thesis and/or clearer topic sentences
– I didn't understand your argument
– You need to warrant out your claim, especially because it's critical to your argument and it's not obvious why
– You should weigh impacts more
– Your angle, while good, was too unoriginal for how late we are in the round
– For how late we are in the round, you should be doing more refutation
– For how late we are in the round, you should be doing more analysis that frames the whole round
– You spent too much time on developing an argument (often establishing the problem) that the other side is not contesting and is unlikey to
– You erroneously said "I move to the previous question"
– Stop saying superfluous words, especially thanking the Chair or speakers
Miscellaneous notes
I'm sorry, but I struggle to follow the questioning period: there's not enough time in each period, there's not enough transition time between each period, everyone's interrupting each other, and I'm insufficiently tracking who's asking questions. If I have any advice for you, it would be to talk slower, tone it down, and keep it simple.
All else equal, I really don't care if you hold your computer or your paper.
I don't really care about "cycles" or "breaking cycle" (and frankly I do not know what those terms mean). It's not like (1) you all are trying to convince me to vote a certain way on the bill and (2) I can't make such a decision fairly if I heard a few more speeches on one side than the other.
Finally, I encourage you to take the activity seriously but not to take yourself too seriously. I often see humorous moments of levity in the U.S. Senate and House, and I think you all can have some of that too while also being seriously engaged in this activity. Doing an extracurricular activity should be at least somewhat fun, and it's okay to show that.
I recommend you read the Important Points for In-Person Tournaments section above.
Yena Koo (she/her)
Edina'24
Please add me to the email chain!! --> yenakoo19@gmail.com
Novices/Policy:
Speed --> I am fine with speed, spread through whatever you want in your constructive speeches but BE CLEAR and slow down a little on your tags and analytics.
I don't care if you tag team if both teams are okay with it (just don't abuse it --- example being cutting your partner off)
I am fine with whatever you run as long as the arguments you are presenting are well articulated/developed (that being said, just do your best!).
I'm not gonna time your speeches, prep, or cx.
Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc...
Reference Sabeeh Mirza's paradigm for further info.
Experience:
I debated with Edina High School from 2014-2018 in the Public Forum format. During this time, I participated in a split of local tournaments and "circuit" tournaments. I did both "first" and "second" speaker roles.
Preferences:
· Debate in front of me as if I didn't have any experience with the topic; please don't use jargon that is topic-specific, because I will probably get lost.
· I have a basic understanding of debate jargon (extend, turn, counterplan, drop, etc.), but you risk losing me if that comprises the majority of your speaking.
· If you wouldn't feel comfortable (read: successful) in reading your args in front of someone's parents, please don't read them in front of me.
· I don't have experience with extreme speed, so if I can't understand the argument orally, I will likely not respect the argument as much.
· I will presume Aff in the event the Neg fails to win offense.
· To vote on your argument, please explain why I should do so. Just winning the argument and not explaining its relevance makes my decision harder, and may make you unhappy.
· If somehow I figure out that your author concludes differently than you portray them, you will lose the argument.
· Each team should track their and their opponents' prep time (I won't).
· There is a strong chance I won't understand your Kritik.
· I am not captivated by performances, so you will probably lose if you attempt to run one in front of me.
· I apologize in advance if I have "judge screwed" you.
my pronouns are she/her
my experience is in policy, if I'm judging you in a different category, please have patience
run whatever seems best to you, i won't automatically vote down any position (and i assume you have the decency to keep things respectful - if what you're reading are arguing is harmful, that takes precedent over any debate arguments)
i prefer you don't spread analytics in front of me, even if they're on the doc.
most (not all) of the notes below are for the neg, i will vote for pretty much any aff that can prove they solve a problem that they have also proven is more important than that of the neg. i also like creativity, and am certainly not opposed to voting for a K-aff, policy gets stale sometimes anyways.
K's
you have to explain each part of your K flow for me to consider it voteable. if your alt solvency is talking about revolution, and your alt is a mental rejection, you would need to explain how those fit together.
affs who focus entirely on the link side of a K debate are generally not on top of things, obviously it can work, but its much more convincing if you can meet the K at a critical level instead of avoiding its content with a 10 foot pole. debate the whole K.
CP's
Your CP needs an explicit net benefit and generics such as states or actor cps are hard to do right and generally not very convincing. if your main net benefit is a solvency deficit you need to do as much work on harms as the aff did in the 1AC.
if you make me laugh, you instantly get at least a minimum of 28 speaker points.
"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." Tom Robbins
Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!
My email is ssspindler97@gmail.com for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :) No one really takes me up on this but the likelihood I forget to edit your ballot is really high, so please consider emailing me a back up option if you want clarification.
Background
Right now, I'm studying to be a HS English Language Arts teacher in a Masters of Education and initial licensure program at the University of Minnesota. I'm on track to be in the classroom by Fall 2025 and can't wait to get a policy team started wherever I end up!
Backing up a bit, I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.
I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.
I have been coaching going on 4 years and judging for 7. I am currently a policy coach at Washburn Senior High in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is part of the Minnesota Urban Debate League. I also coach speech and debate at the Harker School in California.
I've also worked full time for the Minnesota Urban Debate League and coached policy part-time at Edina HS, Wayzata HS, and the University of Minnesota.
Top Notes!
1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread. That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:
a) when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card
b) In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down; it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.
c) instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow (I'm serious do a one-Mississippi in your head)
If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.
2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.
General - Policy & Circuit LD
"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.
Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”
T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.
Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.
Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.
Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.
I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.
Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.
Planless aff vs. T/framework: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs have a clear model of debate to answer framework with, whether or not that includes the topic. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.
Plan aff vs. K :If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?
K v. K: I find framework helpful in these debates as well and remember that even if I know the critical theory you're talking about, I still expect you to explain it throughout the debate because that is a significant part of the learning process and I want to keep myself accountable to the words you are saying in the debate so I don't fill things in for you.
LD -
judge type: consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.
spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines
not spreading: also good
"traditional"LD debaters: lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.
frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.
framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.
PF -
I think the biggest thing that will impact you in front of me is I just have higher expectations for warrants and evidence analysis that are difficult for you to meet when you have a million tiny speeches. Quality over quantity is a beneficial way to think about your approach in these debates!
Fun Survey:
Policy--------------------------X-----------------K
Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad
Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad
Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education
Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92
Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground
Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency
AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:
Hi! My name is Reilly (she/her), and I am a former policy debater at Farmington High School. I am currently a student at the University of Minnesota, studying on the pre-health track.
For the 24-25 topic: I have been out of the debate world since graduating and only judged a few rounds on last year's topic, so if that tells you anything about me, take that as you will. This doesn't necessarily mean I have no idea of what is going on, but be conscious of topic-specific jargon or acronyms as I most likely will not understand them.
Yes--email chain: toohe025@umn.edu
Topics debated: arms sales (19-20), CJR (20-21), water (21-22), NATO(22-23),
Top notes-
-
please respect your partner, opponents, judge, coaches, and anyone who helped make this round and tournament possible
-
racism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism, etc. are non-starters for me. intentional use of harmful language or actions guarantees you an L and tanked speaks.
- losing a round doesn't mean you are a bad debater and winning a round doesn't mean you are superior. confidence is good but being cocky is something I can see straight through.
- most importantly, have fun and be kind to yourself :)
for online debate-- tech issues are inevitable, so we will tackle those issues together. speaking a little louder would probably be best. moreover, being a speed demon may not benefit you if I cannot understand what you are saying--I'll be judging novices most of the year, so this shouldn't be an issue.
--my personal experience in the debate has shaped how I view the activity today. I believe debate is an educational activity, but I also want our community to foster a safe, welcoming, and fun environment. This is a competition, but I don't want you to sacrifice self-decency and become robotic.
I view all ballots through a technical lens; what is written on my flows in ink is what I go off of. offense > defense. I prefer rounds with Clash and ones that go into the actual evidence rather than just debating off of tags or buzzwords. I think judging adaptation is important, but I want you to run what you know best. the best way to guarantee a ballot from me is to be concise, clear, and explanatory. for example, if I say that I like kritiks and you, as a debater, don't like kritiks, do not run one in front of me. if you give me reasoning and explanation, I will most likely give you a ballot
Max Ulven - Any/All
Debater - St. Paul Central - 2021-2025
Coach - Capitol Hill Middle - 2023-
Chains/Questions - centralub.debate@gmail.com
Novices/ Middle Schoolers:
Please have fun, don't be offensive, and try your hardest! I'll be more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, and if its a question along the lines of "what speech comes next", etc, I'll be more than happy to answer it in the moment! The most important thing though is that you should have fun! Nothing about this should matter all that much and I want to help you make sure its not too stressful or competitive and let you focus on community building and learning!
My best [two] pieces of advice/ things that can help you win more debates [this also applies to all other debates actually]
1. Try to do 'line by line' - this means answering your opponents arguments in reference to them, for example saying something like "answering their argument about the link", or "on the perm argument", it will definitely boost your speaks and probably put you in a way better position to win the debate!
2. Try and do impact calc - this just looks like comparing your impacts to your opponents impacts at the end of the round. I'm sure your coaches can give you more advice, but it can look like: "Our impacts about social justice and reforming the police should matter more because you know that's a problem now, whereas their arguments about federalism are silly and not real", or "warming should outweigh economic decline because it guarantees extinction while causing resource shortages that collapse the economy in the meantime". This massively improves your odds of winning because it gives me an explicit reason to vote for you!
Main paradigm thoughts:
Tech over truth.
I'm 17 years old. I don't have the experience, qualifications, or justifications to hold strong argumentative opinions, especially to the point I'd write them down here. As long as your argument isn't offensive or harmful, I'll probably vote on it [and also have ran or at least thought about it/something in its range if that's what you're worried about]! I am constantly bouncing around on wether or not I should write my thoughts on arguments, and if I wanted I could probably write about a mile of things, but I decided not to for now, because those thoughts really shouldn’t be relevant ever, and would all change given technical execution, evidence, and spin.
I care about being a decent human being. I understand if you don't want to like, become besties with the other team you're debating and that's chill! But avoid being directly hostile, mean, or passive-agressive to them---show me you're better based on research and technical execution, not because you're meaner. My favorite judges were always the ones that both were technical, but also made sure everyone was okay/ emphasized inclusivity, and I want to be that person too.
The thought I will share is that there is a weird divide in the national debate community between perceived notions of ‘K’ and ‘Policy’ debaters. I hope that this changes , but until it does here’s what I’ll say: While I primarily went for policy based arguments in high school, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about kritikal arguments, and my coaches (Katie, Marshall, and Cayden) as well as my lab leaders (Turner, BK, DKP, Azja, the RKS staff) all pretty much reinforced my thoughts, though they gave me quite a lot more nuance and education. Good debaters can go for whatever, and good judges will evaluate whatever. So while I hate the label of a “clash” judge, I probably will end up one, as I really am agnostic on beliefs in relation to the K. I would also love to judge a KvK debate or a DA and Case debate. So whatever floats your boat!
Left to my own devices, I'll be likely to always think through things in an Offense-Defense manner and think you need at least some way to solve your offense.
I'm always going to do my best to be kind, engaged, and helpful as your judge - if you have any questions, ask them and if you have any issues with how I judged the debate please tell me - I might disagree with you, but also you may very well be right and I'll probably adjust in the future.
I'm more than comfortable flowing fast debaters, as long as you're clear! I will never be flowing the document - I may check cards during prep/ afterwards, and will shout clear, but I'm not going to use the doc to reconstruct the debate for you - I will check the doc for counterplan, perm, and plan texts only if relevant, and with hesitation - I'll probably be flowing on my laptop, either straight down or lining arguments up depending on the speed / messiness of the debate.
Higher points for people who: act like they want to be here, engage in line by line, do impact calculus, show understanding of the topic [either via original research, good explanations, or other ways], and good strategic cross-examinations.
Lower points for people who: repeatedly assert an argument was ‘dropped’ when it wasn’t, give speeches entirely ignoring any form of line by line debate, hiding ASPEC, and incomprehensible spreading [yes I will warn you, no I won’t be happy].
Also, I'm going to pay attention to CX - this matters for your ethos and points, but also for the sake of me filling in or choosing to not fill in arguments for you later in the debate. High points will go to teams that can execute well in CX, and EXTREMELY high points to teams that can execute well in CX and use that in the debate to win.
Here's a list of people who have influenced a lot of my thoughts about debate, at least in some way/ form: Kiernan Baxter-Kauf, Cayden Mayer, Katie Baxter-Kauf, Marshall Steele, John Turner, Nick Loew, Azja Butler, DKP, Brandon Kelley, Connelly Cowan, Katie Carpenter, OTT, IGM, Jake Swede, most of the MN/MNUDL debate community.
Add me to the chain -- Useno001@umn.edu
Call me Timur (Tim-Ur as in Ur-gent). I don't really like Tim
UMN Policy Debater.
Debate how you want, I think swearing and whatnot is fine, but please still have some sympathy or understanding for your opponent. There is such thing as too much, read the room, and it can affect you speaks if it gets too excessive. I will stop debates that seem to go beyond banter and into threat territory and safety.
I am good with speed and tag teaming.
You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex
They/them
I wanna make it so clear i go off what's on the flow if it's not on my flow i don't know it. so make sure to explain things well.
im down with k affs
I like T and Ks but i will vote for anything
I've been judging for a few years and i debated a bit before that (started judging in 2018)
Its okay to be nervous. debate especially when you just start debating can be really scary. Its okay take a deep breath. if that doesn't work talk to me we can ways pause the round for a minute or two for mental health.
Clarity comes before speed
Yes you can tag team but don't abuse it. (You can not tag team against a maverick )
Even if both teams are three headed monsters the third person who isnt in that debate CAN NOT help.
If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it
If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.
If you don't make it clear your going onto a new card by saying next it is very possible I'll miss your tag.
Make it clear where you on in the speech by sign posting i will probably flow it on the wrong flow which wont make your argument stronger.
Its totally fine to be assertive but don't be mean if you get mean I'll dock speaker points.
If i see you not flowing all of the speeches i will dock speaker points.
Don't ask me questions in round if it deals with the round wait until the debate is over and im giving my rfd.
Extending a card isnt re-reading the card its reading the author year then explaining the warrant in your own words
I don't flow cross x. BUT if you say something that goes against the side you supposed to be on i will write it down in the notes
Tell me if there is anything you don't want me to comment on like if you have a stutter. I dont wanna be bring that up and possibly just annoying you. You can just say things like hey dont bring up if i get stuck on words alot. you dont need to tell me why.