THE MNUDL City Championship
2023 — Online friday, WTMS Saturday, MN/US
Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hideshe/her i coach congress @ bloomington. i also did congress for four years, and CARD @ the UMN for 1 semester which could mean nothing. email me if u have questions about anything i wrote for u/in general: kashif.abiha09@gmail.com
things i like:
good questions
organized speeches w/ a clear format
crystals
impacting
refutation
don't read, EXPLAIN
a good joke or 2
things I don't like:
counterplans
being rude/offensive/discriminatory
no refutation in late-cycle speeches
broken cycle broken cycle broken cycle
sorry i don't like a PO election that drags no hate
I'm okay with a little bit of speed, but am not a fan of true spreading. I'd rather hear a few strong points at a rate I can process over having someone dump so many points that there's no way for their opponent to address them all.
My name is Jamie Maiers, and I am a teacher coach at Tartan High School and a PhD student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I have been working with the MNUDL for four years and have been a staff member at MDAW at Augsburg University.
As a judge, I really like an organized debate. I want you to signpost and understand what it is you are actually saying. Spreading is fine, but if I can't understand you (either because you're mumbling OR you don't tell me what you're talking about) we're not going to have a good time. One of your jobs it to persuade me-- feel free to tell me why I should vote for you-- explain your reasonings for why I should give your team the RFD.
Debate is a team sport so treat your partner (and opponents) kindly. Additionally, I expect you to be a good sport.
I am a teacher first, debate coach second. This means I am more than happy to talk to you about ANYTHING you have questions about regarding the round. I leave lots of detailed feedback and am happy to respond to email. It is my goal for all debaters to get better, not just my own students. Feel free to reach out.
Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2024-2025 Notes
St. Paul Central / Minnesota Urban Debate League
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com
Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy plus a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates in 2022-2023, and 50+ rounds in 2023-2024. I also serve as the Vice Chair of the Minnesota Urban Debate League Advisory Board.
General notes and TLDR version: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debates are public and that means that everyone is welcome, I will always defend what I do, people should feel safe, and I'll answer whatever questions anyone has afterwards; (5) fundamentally do what you want and I'll follow along; and (6) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.
Argument notes after a couple years judging/coaching policy debate after a dozen years off: Debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I last coached and if anything I am surprised at how little arguments and structure have evolved. I have no problem keeping up with you all and I have an exceptionally good memory. I at least sort of read along with speech docs and that seems to make it so that I filter my fundamental feeling that tech comes before truth through a lens of the quality of your evidence. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face and am fairly chatty.
If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way I have probably changed is that I have a higher voting threshold on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility. If push comes to shove, I would always rather people talk about substance.
2024-2025 Topic Notes: I am a practicing litigator, primarily doing plaintiffs' side complex class action work. I am not an IP lawyer. What this means for you: I understand legal concepts and especially the process of litigation exceptionally well and I will know if you describe it incorrectly (and will probably tell you). This should not affect whether I vote for your incorrect argument, and I know more than anyone that a lot of these concepts are pretty esoteric, but accuracy will certainly get you higher points.
BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I am fine in a heg/DA/CP debate. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.
POINTS: SORRY, I KNOW MY POINTS ARE TOO LOW. Am going to try adjusting up the half point I seem to be behind at circuit tournaments for the rest of the year and see how it goes. I follow instructions from Jake Swede at UDL tournaments. PLEASE don't take this personally - I think you're all great.
I'm Sandy! I use they/them (ENG) or elle (ESP) pronouns. Please add me onto your email chains! My email is: boltonbarrientosdebate@gmail.com
2024 will be my twelfth year in the MNUDL :O
Talk to me about Spanish Debate!!!!!!!
- 1st year as the Spanish debate coach for Minneapolis South
- 4th year as the Novice Policy debate coach for Minneapolis South
- Debated for Roosevelt H.S. for 4 years
- Debated for Keewaydin M.S. for 3 years
Tag team is fine but I would love it if you high fived your partner when you do it. I won't enforce this preference in any way other than telling you at the beginning of the debate and it won’t have any speaker point consequences. I just think it's a great way to navigate cross-ex with your partner in a way that's balanced, equitable, and fun!
I highly value story-telling and big picture analysis in your speeches. I love a 1AC that's narrative (i.e. internal link chain) is easy to understand. I love a 2AR overview that tells me in enough detail the story of the AFF and why its impacts matter in the debate. I love a K 2NR that flips the script of the 1AC to tell me why the links actually do matter in the greater context of liberation and structural violence.
What does this mean for you practically?
- When listening to the impact debate (on any flow-- framework, T, theory, kritikal or policy strategies), I'm looking for you to strategically and persuasively tell me why the impact is the most important thing in the round. Exaggerate! Tell me it's "try or die" for the AFF/NEG! Minimize your opponents' impact any chance you get! Abandon phrases like "might happen" or "could solve" and replace it with "will happen" and "absolutely solves". Don't be afraid to use impact calculus. Of course, these framing tools require warrants just like any other argument, but they really make a difference in if I will confidently vote for you or not.
- Speaking of warrants for your impacts, you need coherent internal link chains. Telling me "vote AFF to avoid nuclear war" in your rebuttals isn't enough. It's important to answer questions like: War with who? When? And of course, what's the connection to the AFF's solvency? Telling me the "AFF makes capitalism worse" isn't enough; What part of capitalism? Over-consumption? Labor exploitation? Extractive logic? Wealth hoarding?
- Advocacy statements and solvency should be clearly and consistently explained and extended for both AFF and NEG (if applicable). If you're AFF, that's obviously the whole thing, but just please do make sure to consistently compare the efficacy of the AFF to any alternative NEG advocacies.
(I know alternatives are tricky to explain and defend, and I'm pretty sympathetic to K debaters as a former K debater myself. I do think the Alternative is a pretty cool part of the debate. I'm really interested in radical movement building and how communities organize to make change, if that's a helpful frame to consider when thinking about how you would explain your alternative to me. Feel free to email me with questions!)
- Compare your arguments with your opponents -- clash is king!
- Communicate effectively -- if you're so fast you're unintelligible, or if your Kritik blocks are so dense nobody in the round understands what's going on, that is on you.
- Evidence is really important, but I have a pretty expansive understanding of evidence: storytelling, anecdotes, poetry, dance, journals, zines, prose, scientific journals, history, accounts, common sense thinking, etc. are all forms of evidence that can generate knowledge and prove your arguments.
- For the sake of being honest about my implicit biases, I will admit this: I do not have the brain for theory debates. I find things like aspec, condo, intrinsic perms bad, etc. really challenging to flow and follow and as a result, I don't typically include them on my ballots. Sometimes theory happens because it must or because it's Rosebowl, and I get it. But if you're wondering if you should include your A-Z spec blocks in front of me, maybe wait for a different judge lol.
- I was a K debater in high school. I'm definitely still really interested in Kritikal literature as a person involved in community organizing and who is an Indigenous Studies major. If you're curious about Kritiks, want feedback on strategies, or just to talk through ideas -- please talk to me! I can definitely provide more specific comments and ideas on: abolition, settler colonialism and coloniality, indigenous and Chicanx feminisms, and queer theory. This is not to say I'll vote for Kritiks all the time or that I won't get your policy strategy. Run whatever you want.
- Please define your acronyms before you use them!
- As opposed to Abbie "Big A" Amundsen (<3), I am a big fan of overviews!
Have fun! Be nice! Stay organized! That's all it takes.
I like to consider myself an "experienced debater", I have been debating since 2015, and coaching since 2018. I will sustain most arguments in a round up through spark, I used to read spark. However, if you read any racism, sexism, ableism, any other "ism" good arguments I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose (and use my magic judge political capital to make you lose the rest of your rounds). Additionally, I will fill out paperwork for you to get 0 speaks. The line is drawn from a hypothetical silly argument, to real world harms from the words you say.
K AFF
Run em, expect T debate, win T debate, standers alone if done well will get you the ballot. Win. Simple. Also FW is a thing (don't get it confused with framing) don't drop it. If you are running a K AFF I expect the thesis of the 1AC to be in the 2AR.
Do I think you need to link to the resolution...no. You do have to tell me why your issue is more pressing than the NEG's method of debate.
Joke ARGs
Yes.
Disads
Disads are cool, run them if you have them, I like them more than counterplans. Do not run disads that clash with FIAT theory. Do not read more than two uniqueness cards I might fall asleep, your RFD will end up being very empty. Similarly, do not read non-unique, I tell this to my middle school debaters; non-unique is not a voting issue, once again I will fall asleep. I will very, very, very, rarely vote on non-unique (unless its actually non-unique i.e. politics DA's).
Counterplans
I find CP's boring, I am voting on whether the AFF's policy is good, not whether the NEG's could be better otherwise it is just plan vs plan. Obviously, the NEG could always create a better version of the plan because they are not bound by silly little things like topicality. So I think a counterplan has to meet ground, and reasonability arguments. Stand alone counterplans will not be voted on, more often than not they are plan plus. If the net benefit isn't stated before the 1NR I will not weigh the CP. Bonus points if you use a CP to double bind them into a topicality argument, that in my opinion is the best way a CP can be ran.
Kritiks
I love kritiks, run kritiks. I am a K debater, and as such I will likely understand most K's. If you dig out the dinosaur earth K, you will get between 0.1 and 1 extra speaks (depending on your understanding); this kritik is my baby. Further more, joke args are cool, they bring more fun to the "sport", and at the end of the day, I do debate cause its fun, lord knows it doesn't pays well. Having in depth understanding of a K will net you massive speaks, this extends to using the K as an independent DA (if done well), using T debate as links to the K, using the perm to the K as links to the K, ect... On the flip side reading a K, and not understanding the authors you read, will do... something...to your speaks. I am pretty familiar with most generic K's and branches of those. I am also familiar with most philosophical and high theory literature so you may not need to do as much work on explanation in front of me, so feel free to spend more time on the link debate.
Topicality
Don't bother, unless the AFF is actually not topical. Topicality is real life uniqueness, I would rather take a nap. If there are like 3 aff's that meet under your interp, I'm not voting for it. Going for theory off one card will be a rejection of the card not the team for the most part.
I am weird and will vote AFF on topicality if there is a sufficient standards turn, but I am yet to see it happen.
Theory
I'm not sure what debate really is, even after many years, if you can explain it to me on this flow, I would appreciate it. (You get the point) If you are going to run theory, run it right. Know your own theory before running it, or it gets messy fast.
If there is a E-mail chain, add me. ---> Seabass.debate@gmail.com I wont read the cards unless there is extensive debate over them in round. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow the doc I will flow what I hear.
Here's a link to a rick roll ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ If you don't believe me you can click it.
A survey I stole from someone else's paradigm:
Can be more dead inside based on what happens------X------------------------------------Dead inside
Policy---------------------------------------------XK (flexy debaters r so rad and cool)
TechX----------------------------------------------Truth
Read no cards----X-------------------------------Read all the cards
Politics DA is a thing-----------------------------XPolitics DA not a thing
Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X---- Yes your Baudrillard (In fact u are literally Baudy now!)
Clarity------------------------X---------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits-----------------------------------X-----------Aff ground
Presumption---------------------X-----------------IF wE WiN A onE pERceNt RisK...
Longer ev--------------------X--------------------More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------X--I only read what you read
Referencing THIS philosophy in your speech---------------------X---plz don't
Fiat double bind------------------------------------------X-literally any other arg
AT: -X------------------------------------------------------- A2:
Bodies without organs----------------------------X--Organs without bodies (Skeletons are pretty rad)
Structural Inherency-----------------------X------------------Attitudinal Inherency
Red Bull-------------------------Monster (I am poor)------------------Water-------------------X-Milk
Paper Flow---------------------X--------------------Digi Flow
Laptop Stickers-X----------------------------------------Stand Stickers
Line by Line--------------------------------------X---Flow Anarchy
Reasonability------X-----------------------------------competing interpretations
Epistemology-----------X---------------------------Policy
deBAte is A gamE---------------------------X--I would rather not hear this anymore
Bribe---------------------------------------XBigger Bribe
Times New Roman-------------X---------------Comic Sans
she/her
please add jfrese016@gmail.com to the email chain
I am a coach at Washburn Highschool where I have been working since 2021.
I debater for a total of 6 years before I decided to stop debating. 4 were in high school at Glenbrook South and 2 at the University of Minnesota. I have qualified for the TOC once and the NDT twice
updated for Blake
TLDR
I don't really have much to say in this paradigm I have previously had long paradigms that explained my view of each argument, but, I dont think that provided anything useful because the way you debate is a stylistic choice and I don't think judges should have a preference on what styles they vote for. It is my job as a judge to evaluate the flow and vote for which ever team I think wins the round. I will vote for any argument (excluding arguments that make the debate space harmful as I won't ignore my role is as an educator).
Ks--i really like these they are useful education that should be discussed in the debate space. I will vote on framework because I think the debate about framework is a useful conversation to have (how should our engagement with debate operate is a useful question and one that I really like).
Policy--this is the style i debated. i really like these I don't know if there is much more to say. I mean DAs, Ts, CPs, Turns, all are good.
Condo--I think that condo is fine but Ill vote for condo bad even against 1 condo if you win it.
If u want to read my full views of debate they are here
My experience is one mainly as debating policy, however, my more recent experience coaching have left me more focused on critical arguments, mainly the cap k and set col while also adding in a role as an educator inside of the space. I don't think that it should be up to the judges to determine the stylistic decisions they vote on it should be the argumentation. That said I won't vote for arguments that make the debate space harmful.
Kritiks
I typically think of kritiks as coming in a couple forms. One that focuses a criticism on the framework of debate or one that focuses more on an alternative. These are both very strong and I understand the strategic choice of keeping routes open, but, by the end of the debate I think that having the time to spend constructing a specific route is more sucessful than trying to keep all options open. It is much more persuasive if all the arguments you chose to go for use a similar foundation. This is extremely useful because if you spent so much time winning framework it will make certain case arguments, certain links better.
If you are debating against a kritik what helped me was trying to identify the route the neg's k takes and having a plan for each of these avenues. I think it really depends on the aff, but there are a few strategies against Ks. By strategies I mean what is the focus of the 2ar win on, because you should still have everything covered as much as it needs to.
-Perm, no-link--it is important to have a net benefit to the perm which can be alt fails, cede the ptx, the advantage, ect.
-Framework, extinction outweighs, alt fails--it is important to think through the implication of you winning framework. There are some Ks where they will just lose while other Ks have strong alts and impacts.
CPs
I am a fan of CPs. I don’t really have any leaning way I believe. I think theory typically isn’t the best strategy not because I won’t vote on it but unless the CP is really cheating then it typically is just easier for the neg to defend theory.
This is where I spent a lot of my time in debate doing coming up with cps.
DAs
I love DAs. The bad ones the good ones whatever da you want. I feel like this isn’t controversial.
T
I am a very good judge for T if you are ready on the tech level. I will peetty easially pull the trigger on less viable T violations if you are just ahead. I really like the focus being put on the implications of how debate would work.
This is also where I spent most of my time debating
he/him
Debated Policy at Highland Park in Saint Paul for 4 years
Also debated 4 years of parli in college lol
Retired coach for Highland Park
put me on the chain - ziglaser@gmail.com
NOVICE ONLY
0. FLOW!!! Please! If you show me your flow after the round I will give you +0.5 speaker points.
1. Extensions wise, if parts of an argument aren't contested and you don't extend them explicitly, I'll still probably give them to you. I get it, novice debate is hard, and focusing on the areas of clash is important and takes a lot of time.
2. Keep talking. If you have anything you could possibly say about the debate, say it if otherwise you are going to sit down 1/2 way through your 2NC.
3. Do impact calculus, and when you do, you should be comparing it to the other team, e.g. "Even if they win that long-term economic growth causes global warming, short-term economic decline still causes our impact, which kills us first."
General Stuff
I will vote for or against any argument that isn't on face offensive (ie racism good). I am a big believer in tech (what is truth even?), but anyone that claims to be tabula rasa is lying--we all have biases that influence what we find persuasive. Just know that if I'm adjudicating direct clash between reality and BS, it'd be helpful to argue what you think I want to hear.
I like CX, let's keep it that way. I'm sometimes snarky, but there is a fine line between snarky and rude, and I'd prefer if you don't cross it. I get it's hard to come up with questions and prep, so I won't take it out on your speaks if you're bumbling through: "so, uh, why doesn't you internal link fail" for 3 min, but I will reward good CX, and note key concessions. I suppose this is where I'll spot the generic "don't be a terrible human being" line. Don't. Debate should be fun above all else and I will call you out in round.
Speed - I want to be transparent about this: I am not as fast a flow-er or understand-er as I was in high school. For the most part, I will hold that as my responsibility and follow along on the doc to supplement my flow. I do not want to let my limitations undercut your practiced debate skills. I will do my best to catch analytics, but they are more likely to be on my flow (and imo it's better for debate) if you send them in the doc. Where I will hold firm is that you need to be physically saying the words highlighted in the card. If I focus on your voice and cannot make out each word, you are not reading the card. If this happens you will hear me say "clear", I will do this 3 times, and then I will stop flowing.
+5 speaks for Jake Swede metaphors or anecdotes.
Neg Stuff
T - I loved it before I went for it too much ("T/To" all the way!), then I hated it, and now... we're chill. I will vote straight tech on T. Unless it's an argument, I don't care whether an aff is the most common on the topic or never read before (and I think I mean this more than other judges who say this). I generally default to competing interpretations but am willing to vote on reasonability. "Reasonability" does not include the argument "the aff is reasonably topical" and if you are trying to make that argument, to quote my coach, the amazing Aiji Endo, out of context: "I will stare intensely at you for as long as it takes you to realize this is not a winning argument."
CP - I'm willing to vote on any counterplan and any counterplan theory. For the most part, I think counterplan theory needs in-round abuse or demonstrable potential for abuse in the setup of a specific round to avoid being blippy gotchas that win rounds on a fluke. Of course, this is debateable.
DAs - Like 'em. I like Politics. A lot. Please give me a good politics debate. I also like other disads. Also, most disads are awful and have incoherent internal link chains. You should clown on these in front of me. 0 risk is possible.
Ks - Links matter a lot. Links of omission are not links if the affirmative wins they're links of omission. I was once told to impact turn settler colonialism by a judge. DON'T IMPACT TURN SETTLER COLONIALISM. (to be clear I do think there are legit impact turns on Ks, Cap, Biopower, etc). The alternative provides uniqueness to the kritik, and usually deserves for attention from both the aff and neg.
FWK - I'm pretty centrist here. The strongest framework is T/anything-other-than-USFG. The rounds and the speaks will probably look poorly if you don't engage with the affirmative in the meaningful way. 1-off FWK is boring, why not come up with some dumb off-case you won't go for too? I'm more likely to vote on new/creative fwk arguments than a team heirloom that's been read for 10 years.
K affs - I think they're pretty neat. I've always run a policy aff but quite enjoy being in rounds vs a K aff. That said, clowning on the edging-on-abusive vagueness of most k-affs is the most fun you can have in debate, and I probably have a much lower bar for voting on presumption than most.
Aff stuff
I never feel like the aff gets enough play in a paradigm, so I'll try to say a few things.
1. If the neg drops major parts of case, I need a sentence or two of story, but nothing beyond that. Name the authors that matter to the rest of the debate.
2. You probably should get to weigh some part of the aff against a K, though what that looks like needs to be argued. I think policy affirmatives obviously create as much discourse as a Kritik which could be positive or negative.
3. The 1AR is the hardest speech in the round, but by god don't make it the least organized. Stick to the flows and you'll be A-OK.
Definitely Unironic Personal Beliefs
???? Bowties are cool ????
???? Cap Good ????
???? 20 Nurses in Rural Michigan is all this world needs ????
???? God is Dead ????
I'd prefer you refer to me as Benjy but Judge is fine, names are hard. he/him benjydebate@gmail.com
Round; tournament; aff team [AFF] vs neg team [NEG]
ex: R3 Rosebowl Minnesota BH [AFF] vs UMN QL [NEG]
current college debater at UMN -- debated local circuit 3 years in HS
TLDR, I have 2 minutes before round:
yes tag team but it'll hurt your speaks if the person who "shouldn't" be talking during any given cx is stepping in a lot
tech > truth
unlimited condo for carded 1nc args -- more amicable to the impact of the violation for useless analytic only cps and cping out of a straight turn (not to say won't vote on 1 condo bad if debated in affs favor just threshold is higher and I suspect you will struggle in 2AR to articulate why a model that allows 1 whole kickable CP is undebatable)
I'm probably more expressive then I should be -- if I look confused I'm probably confused, if I'm nodding you're probably doing something right
at the end of the day I will evaluate the debate off my flow -- this activity should be a fun place to learn and compete.
CX time includes asking about cards read--marked doc threshold is 3+ marked cards--realistically no amount of skipped cards unless there is something in play that makes flowing/following the speech impossible
prep time ends the moment you are not going to edit your doc further and are ready to click the save button--it's unlikely you should need to type after you've stopped prep--going to the bathroom isn't prep but obv try to do before round
I don't evaluate things outside the round, I think part of the beauty of debate is reading heg good one round and the anarchy K the next.
this includes never even evaluating an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or attacks on the opposing team's character
please ask other thoughts before round, happy to answer, don't care if it's technically answered somewhere in this wall of text below
More elaborate thoughts:
(mostly here for pref sheets and because the paradigm is the only place I get to soapbox about my thoughts on debate and I intend to take advantage of that)
toplevel stuff that doesn't get its own section:
I highly encourage asking questions, it is by far the best way to improve at debate bar nothing, I would rather have someone post-round me then someone visibly check out the second I say who won. Yes feel free to email me after the round but the longer you wait the more my memory will fade. If you do feel like post rounding me please expressly point out the part you disagree with and ask directly about it rather then poke at it with weird passive aggressive indirect questions.
send your analytics!! fundamentally makes debate better for everyone and produces higher quality debates (yes this will help your speaks if that's the incentive you need)
same for open sourcing, at least have 1AC 1NCs up pretty please
bigotry to the point of voting issue comes before T comes before theory comes before substance
please please flow everything after the 1NC, one of my favorite parts of debate is great cx lines of questioning and when I lose a minute 30 of that because you're too busy to even listen for tags I get sad
arg by arg:
K: I am probably a harder sell then most, will absolutely vote on it if you win it on the flow, though I will make no pretensions about not having bias going into the round, general thoughts in no particular order:
on a truth level I strongly believe consequences of the plan should probably be weighed vs K and to think otherwise destroys a lot of the core educational value of debate. That is to say unless you think you are crushing them on the fw page (which you very well might be) I am much more likely to vote for a team that proves link turns case, alt solves everything, K impact outweighs etc.
The aff should bully the alt more, lock them down in cross to what it is, if it happens, how it resolves the links etc. negs are so shifty about the materiality of the alt but only if you let them be--if they stay shifty when directly questioned on it in cx I'm much more likely to allow the 1AR/2AR wax poetic about vague/utopian alts bad and reject them. For the neg when you seem to shift in and out of doing a fiated action depending on what the 2AC went for I will be unhappy. If you say revolution needed, be ready to defend the implications of an attempted revolution regardless of the 2NR attempting to reconstrue it as "imagining a world in which..."
Additionally I find myself quite persuadable to logical aff explanations of how the alt could resolve the links regardless to the plan, for example if we're starting a revolution to overthrow the entire usfg or doing mutual aid I find it hard to believe the make or break is the status of our military policy over Saudi Arabia. Also helped when the aff can pull out thumpers that likely double bind the alt into either already can't happen or if alt can overcome that it can overcome the plan.
On a truth level I think perfcon fundamentally disproves reps links and have yet to hear a compelling argument why that's wrong. (this probably justifies severance perms and maybe justifies reject the arg)
as far as ROB/ROJ args go no the other team didn't drop it because they extended their fw but didn't say the words role of the ballot, k teams that act like this is a killshot get my goat
Impacts on Ks often get forgotten about, both teams need to acknowledge and debate about them more. (strongly believe 95% of impacts on Ks are either terminally nonunique or the alt solves about 1% of them)
EDIT: okay first full year of judging down and probably voted for 75% of the Ks extended to the 2NR, if you are aff please please please be more offensive on the fw page, so many teams just extending near terminal defense to the negs interp without telling me the world of the aff interp or why it should be preferred. Gave quite a few "on a truth level I think you link you lose is a bad model of debate but the aff literally never told me how else to evaluate the debate/why the aff model is good past the 2ac so I am forced to default to a model of debate I think is bad because there just isn't an alternative/isn't a reason your interp is actually good for debate."
T v Policy: Probably type of round I am least confident judging, that means you should probably do more big picture work in terms of explaining what the topic looks like under your interp vs the other (caselists <3333). Be careful to flag what is offense for your interp vs what's just good defense to theirs. impact gets 10x stronger if you can prove in round abuse because of how untopical they are. That being said just losing one core DA you didn't even read probably doesn't outweigh education from researching and debating a broader topic and makes reasonability a decent piece of defense to overcome. This shouldn't need to be said but if you're going for T the 2NR should be 5 mins straight of T. I think the phrase plan text in a vacuum has lost all meaning and people just use it as a buzzword to force the other team to answer it. intent to define is very important and when not told otherwise I default to legal definitions being better. (models stuff below applies here)
T v K aff: will elaborate more on the K aff portion but in an evenly debated round I likely err neg, I think limited topics are probably good and K affs rarely help the topic or stimulate change inside or outside debate. Will vote on both fairness and clash and it baffles me how so many judges really only vote on one impact and expect you to tailor your strategy to them. (But also clash is 1000 times more true and if you think otherwise you are wrong and bad)
CP: the 2nd best part of debate only to fun impact turns. Especially true for huge 1 card counterplan that results in solving case. Probably my 2nd most unpopular opinion is solves better is absolutely a viable reason to vote neg and can be the correct 2NR on a counterplan. My general CP enthusiasm decreases once planks get to around 7+, especially if the plan text is longer then the total sum of highlighted words.. Sufficiency framing is a nothing word that doesn't ever need to be said, I don't see why a judge would ever sway from evaluating a CP that way. probably more friendly to consult, agent etc. cps then most. In that vein states and municipality fiat are probably good, private actor and international fiat are almost certainly bad. (though that really never rises above reject the arg)
judge kick: yes but you need to say the words judge kick at some point before the 2nr for me to do it, (saying squo is always an option counts). Am very amicable to being convinced I shouldn't if the aff says so, honestly on a truth level probably one of the topics I'm most 50/50 on whether it's good or bad.
If you made it this far you probably care about your speaks so give a genuine complement to your opponent on something they did well after the debate and I'll give you a good bump.
K affs: probably not going to be the judge you want for this, regardless I will vote on them, I need to be convinced of three main things:
1. There is no topical version of the aff that could be ran under the current resolution, so you need to prove why a TVA given by the neg is leaps and bounds away from the aff and excludes most of the affs literature base. Just because it uses the usfg isn't enough to inherently make a TVA undebateable.
2. Why a ballot matters: What impacts do you access exclusively through getting the ballot that you don't get if you come in and have the same debate but lose and after the round I say "cool aff I learned something today and I will talk about this with people around me".
3. You wholeheartedly believe in what you're running and that doing so will positively impact the debate space (/world if that's your vibe) not just to get a ballot and dodge clash. I strongly believe K affs lose all value if there isn't a genuine real world thing you are aiming to achieve by reading it.
Toplevel stuff but it really isn't important so it's here:
am most likely to view debate through a similar lens as Miranda Ehrlich, Owen PF, Nolan Johnson, J Parrish, Kacee Wells, Josiah Ferguson and really anyone else who has worked with/debated for the U of M.
probably most unpopular debate opinion is that in round abuse > models debates--I think this is me being jaded about individual debates actually changing subjectivities but to me actually being unable to win this debate because the aff was so barely relevant to the topic or they made the 2AC impossible by reading 12 condo matters so much more then if this single debate justifies _______ as an acceptable practice. This is because to me that's the impact my ballot can resolve. On the other hand I truly do not believe this ballot from this one judge will mean you don't do the same next debate.
judges that don't follow along on doc make no sense, images, relevant lines from cards, perm texts, missed author name because I'm dumb, etc. I am convinced this is the correct way to do it and judges that don't just are trying to flex how strong their flowing is to the point of hubris (that is not to say I will backflow for you, if I miss an arg but see it's in the doc I'm not flowing something I couldn't understand)
on that note will clear three times after that ur donezo, go slower, I give up, I cannot vote on an arg I didn't have flowed til the last rebuttals
no inserting cards except previously read lines by other the other team
Hello! I've been the Teacher Coach at Central for the better part of the last eight years. I have no prior debate experience, and as such I tend to judge only Rookie and Novice rounds. Here are a few things you should know:
-If you're reading unclearly, I'll ask you to slow down. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't put your arguments on my flow
-Clash is extremely important. Make sure you are able to argue directly against what your opponent is saying
-I'm old school. If you're the aff, you need to win all stock issues
-You need to be really, REALLY convincing (basically perfect) to argue T against a plan from the packet
-If your terminal impact is nuclear war or extinction I will be very curious as to your thought process. And no, nuclear weapons being used DOES NOT lead to total extinction. If it did, we'd be extinct
Have a good one, and I'll see you in round.
-Jents
Mark Kivimaki -- he/him -- Coach at Edina HS (LD, speech), Isidore Newman (LD) and University of Minnesota (policy)
umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com -- add me to the chain please!
Glenbrooks Note: We are required to use the Tabroom file share for this tournament. Do not make an email chain.
Speaks go down 0.1 for every minute that you are late to round.
*****
I have no preferences in terms of content that should determine the arguments that you make. You should debate in the way that you have invested, whether it’s a policy, critical or philosophical approach.
Debate is a verbal communication activity, and I vote on the words that come out of your mouth, not on what your document says or filling in my own understanding of the arguments. I think you will be happier with my decision if you slow down.
1—Not voting on blips without warrants. Many of the arguments presented in LD are entirely non-sensical enthymemes. I will not vote on “condo is a voter—skews strategy, dispo solves” or “reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention”.
2—If you read evidence that is highlighted to the point of incoherence, strike me. To justify an argument, you must present it in a way I can understand.
3—I am becoming a clarity hawk. I should be able to crisply and clearly hear every word you are saying, including card text. I will clear you twice, if you are still unclear after I will vote against you for clipping. I prefer to judge engaging speakers--I have ADHD and it is much more likely that I will unintentionally zone out during your speech if you are monotone / unclear.
4—Flowing. You should do it. If you ask about what was read, that needs to be prep time or CX time. Marked documents only indicate where you stopped reading on marked cards, you do not need to take out unread cards or analytics. The more time you waste, the less time I have to think about my decision.
5—I cannot flow long analytic blocks with no pen time in between, and I won’t backflow from the doc. What gets on my flow in the constructive is what I evaluate at the end of the debate.
I will not vote on an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or the opposing team's character.
If you are symptomatic with any kind of respiratory illness, I'd strongly prefer that you wear a mask during the debate. Nobody wants to get sick just from going to a tournament, it's common courtesy.
Introduction
Hi everyone! My name is Sabrina and I am part of the coaching staff at Minneapolis South High School. I debated from 2016-2020 at the University of Minnesota. Before coming to South I was a UDL community Coach at Roosevelt High School, Highland Park High School, and most recently Washington Technology Magnet School. I began debating in college, and was not involved in debate when I was a high school student, so everything that I have come to understand about high school debate I learned from debaters like you.
This year, I am doing an Americorps term of service as a Promise Fellow youth mentor with the Minnesota Alliance with Youth at South High School. If you have any questions about what Americorps is like, what the benefits are, or the different opportunities there are for young people to serve in the Minneapolis area, feel free to ask me!
I really enjoy working with young people and working at schools, so I would like to thank you for deciding to be a debater and for giving me, and all of the judges at this tournament, the opportunity to meet you and speak with you :)
Conduct in the Round
Punctuality - My preference is for the 1AC to be standing up and ready to speak at the start time of the round. That means that 10 minutes before the start time, you already started an email chain and sent the affirmative out to everyone in the round. I have had to decide debates before the final rebuttals due to tardiness, and I want you all to have the opportunity to finish the debate and ask questions.
CX - I do not appreciate tag team cross ex. If you jump in to ask or answer a cross ex question before your partner even opens their mouth, I will not be happy. If you have a specific question you would like your debate partner to ask, it is best practice to take prep time before cross ex to communicate that to them. This has the added benefit of freeing up 3:00 additional minutes of prep time for you.
Prep - If you are talking to your debate partner about the round, that always counts as taking prep. If you are standing up there taking too long to email the doc, I am suspicious of you. Be as prompt as possible after stopping your prep time to avoid suspicion.
Speaking - Speaking fast is ok but if you are failing to pronounce your words I will not be happy and I will let you know. If what you are saying in the speech does not reflect what is highlighted in your cards, I will know and I will ask you to send a document reflecting the cards that you actually read.
How to Win
I will let you read any new evidence in any constructive speeches and I will give you the full weight of all of that evidence. If you read an entirely new off case position in the 2NC, the aff must read new evidence in the 1AR to respond. This is the most fair, and it's how debate works at every level except for local circuit novice for some reason.
Choose your strongest position in the 2NR/2AR (or earlier), and spend 5 minutes explaining the framework (sometimes), timeframe, probability, and magnitude of your strongest impact, compare/contrast your impact with your opponent's impact(s), and tell me why the plan does or does not solve for those impacts. If you bring more than one advantage into the 2AR, or more than one DA/K/CP+NB into the 2NR, I will be sad!
Technical decisions come before argumentative content, but both are key to win the ballot. The content of your arguments ought to be reasonable, probable, and mostly true, AND you must present your arguments in a technically coherent manner. When extending arguments, simply repeating the author's name is not enough. In order for me to consider the argument extended into the speech, you must always explain the warrant from the evidence you wish to extend. Avoid reading new cards in the 2NC/2AC if those warrants already exist in the 1NC/1AC.
Communicate with your partner to ensure that the first rebuttal contains all arguments that will be needed for the final rebuttal. The first rebuttal is where you ought to be most vigilant about not dropping arguments.
Do your best to answer your opponent's arguments line by line down the flow.
Speaker Points
When I evaluate speaker points, it ends up being a rough relative ranking of all the speakers in the round. If I think that you have a more or less polished style of debating than your opponents or your debate partner, it will be reflected in your speaker points. I consider your technical/argumentative decisions, your presentation, and sportsmanship when assessing speaker points. It is not an exact science so please don't take speaker points very seriously or very personally: in this round or in any other round, with any other judge.
Final Thoughts
Good luck! I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
For High School Novice/Middle School:
basically please just have fun and be kind to each other! debate should be about learning and having a good time so don't say anything offensive and stay on topic and we should be good. i will answer basic questions like speech times and stuff during the round, but after round i'll answer just about any question you ask me. please time yourselves since it's a good habit to get into, and if there's an email chain please add me to it.
i'll give you a 0.2 boost in speaks if you add in a song title from any gracie abrams song
About me:
hi :) my name is eleanor (she/her) eleanorlasalle31@gmail.com
i'm a debater for central high school, though i also did two years of middle school debate for hidden river before that!
She/her - respecting others pronouns is non negotiable
I’m currently a coach at Washburn HS, and a former varsity debater for St Paul Central HS. As a debater I was the 2N/1A and leaned towards using Ks and soft left affs
Judging -
Idc what you call me in round but if you're going to use my first name try to pronounce it right (Mar - in)
TLDR - I’ll vote on anything (within ethical bounds) as long as it’s argued + explained well
If you’re a middle schooler read the first 3 sections of my paradigm at least.
Round procedure -
Feel free to ask questions before the round begins, as well as in round as long if it is about procedure
If I’m making origami or something don’t worry I’m still paying attention
I am fairly lax and won't be a huge stickler about certain procedural things, just run them by me before you try anything. I am very empathetic to tech issues; my computer was usually the tech issue... I try to help bridge any accessibility problems that come up (tbh working tech is a privilege that debate takes for granted).
I do allow tag teaming in cross, just please split the time evenly. In speeches however try to avoid talking to your partner during their speech because that’s a pet peeve of mine.
I keep my own timer in round, but also have another for yourself because I am forgetful sometimes.
Presentation/speaks -
I do not flow off the speech docs. Usually I don't even look at them during your speech so try to speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying there's less of a chance I will flow it.
I can flow fast spreading for the most part (slow down on important analytics), but please justify the need to speak insanely fast. It won’t add to your speaks if you’re not using that extra time you’re making for yourself to make your arguments more complex.
Make sure to stand up and face the judge (me) while speaking (even during CX), if able.
Pet peeve of mine is unlabeled flows - please label them to make my life easier. It makes it harder to organize my flows so it increases the chance something will be misflowed - and also I WILL name them myself if not given a name, and many people across debate can attest to my unserious naming conventions.
Make sure to use all your time in all speeches - this includes cross-ex!
Please be civil - hateful language or actions will not be tolerated and result in immediate deduction from speaker points (if not an auto L) and an email to your coach.
Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.
I like it when constructives are numbered and/or specifically telling me what argument a card is responding to.
You should be pausing, saying “next” (or the like), or changing tone when you start reading a new card’s tag.
Don’t give me overviews or underviews in any of the first 3 constructives unless you really think it is beneficial on a certain flow.
In rebuttals you should be explicitly telling me what I should be voting on and how I should be weighing arguments - write my ballot for me.
Minimize new flows in the block.
Yay direct and explicit clash!!
Tech—O—————Truth
Aff -
I have slightly lower standards for presumption ballots, but mostly comes down to lack of extended warrants. I usually air on the negative side if the aff fails to extend solvency. I prefer to have some case warrants in the 2AR, even superficially.
I have lower standards for IL chains, unless the neg blows it up.
With me framing will be your friend, especially if you have extinction scenarios.
CPs -
As with any advocacy, you should be clearly explaining what it does and how it has any solvency/net benefits.
I prefer articulated perms but if the neg drops it I’ll vote on very little.
PICs annoy me so I have a low burden for PIC theory.
I have been told I don’t make it clear enough how annoyed I get with most policy CPs in general, so just run them well.
DAs -
The links and IL chain will make or break these for me - defend them with your life.
Prove to me why it o/ws case or takes out a significant enough portion of it.
Kritiks -
Because I am an experienced K debater, I am both a good and bad judge for them. I am probably a bit biased towards well run Ks, but I will not be forgiving with poorly run Ks.
Make sure you explain to the fullest degree anyway if you are running a K because they can be tricky. Walk me through the story of the k and tell me why it o/ws case.
Please don’t just throw around buzz words - they don't mean anything on their own. I know a lot of the high philosophy concepts/definitions, I just usually can't immediately mentally access them while they are being spread through at 300 wpm so explanation is incredibly important.
Signpost your k sections!! - especially in the block and 1ar.
I have trouble flowing fast FW analytics so slow down and make sure its clear.
I am not a fan of non-UQ (oh wow we live in a society) or use-of-state links but I’ll vote on them if they are explained with how it relates to the K impacts.
I have fairly high standards for impact turns, but it mostly comes down to explanation.
Ks are my favorite don’t disrespect them please T-T
Theory and topicality -
I understand most theory/topicality as long as it’s not super niche but please explain it like I’ve never heard of it before - I won’t vote on it if you don’t tell me why I should care about it in round. I am not the fastest flow-er of analytics so you HAVE to slow down.
If you start new theory flows after the 1NC/2AC make them relevant or else I will NOT care.
The buzz word standards are the ones I’m most likely to get lost in. It’s fine to only briefly explain during the constructives, but you need to contextualize/impact them during the rebuttals if you want me to care.
In my opinion, voters are not implicit - it's fine ig if you don't have them in the 1NC/2AC but in all further speeches you need to at least mention them.
I'm pretty wary of annoying theory tbh, so if you roll up with like 7 theory flows I'm going to be more forgiving if the other side drops something.
Joke args -
I love joke args with my full heart because I believe its one of the little things that make this entire activity worth it sometimes, but there is a time and place for them, and the content they project should follow basic ethical standards.
If you do run a joke arg you have to be 100% in it - confidence is key! Look me straight in the eyes while you affirm that the fly spaghetti monster controls the planet. If both teams are in it, this is the most likely time I’ll award 30s lol
My email is marenjlien@gmail.com- please put me on any email chain. If you have any after round questions that aren’t answered in my ballot feel free to email me about it, I’m happy to explain anything.
Cheeky document names or any star trek references will earn you extra speaks. A 30 if you play a musical instrument instead of a constructive.
Hi! I'm currently a coach for Roseville! In my time as a debater, I ran almost exclusively kritiks, primarily ableism, militarism, Foucault, and capitalism. I ran a LOT of fun, goofy arguments, including pirates, squirrels, and climate change good.
Top Level
I will keep my personal political opinions outside the round, but in the interest of disclosure, I'm extremely leftist and have strong opinions on many things. I am specifically very interested in social justice and economic reform.
I think debate is first and foremost an educational activity. As such, I prioritize education, respect, and fun over sheer competition. This doesn't mean I'm anti-competition; I think it's a vital part of the activity, I just don't think it should be the TOP priority.
Fun is an often disregarded aspect of the activity, and I think that's a huge shame. Fun and education go hand in hand. Thus, make sure you aren't being cruel. I won't stop the round for it, but it will do a number on your rhetorical reputation with me.
I have ADHD. This can manifest in many ways, but it mainly affects the fact that I will appear as if I'm not paying attention. This is not true. I promise I am engaged, but I display that attention in nontraditional ways. Additionally, I will occasionally say stupid things or fail to articulate my thoughts as well -- if I do this, I will attempt to correct myself, but please excuse me if I fail to. Thank you for understanding :)
I will vote on the team that makes it easiest for me to vote them. Impact calculation and telling me why you win both go a long way with me. I will prioritize this over traditional debate structures, insofar as I will vote on a weird or nontraditional K as long as I'm given the best reason to vote for it presented in the round.
Rhetoric is also important to me. While the winner of the debate will presents the best arguments, I will give speaks more heavily based on rhetorical skill and use. Humor goes a long way -- if you make me laugh, that will be reflected in your speaks -- and so does assertiveness and general confidence. So even if you think you're losing on the flow, don't discount your speaks.
Still working on the following bit
Expectations
I won't tell you what to run or how to run your case, but I'll discourage running more than 3 offcase or 3 advantages with me unless you're confident in your ability to argue them all well.
I think spreading is an unfortunate byproduct of the increase in competition in the debate scene. Because of this, I accept it, but keep in mind clarity is key. Your speaks will reflect your clarity. If I can barely understand what you're saying, I'll shout 'clear' up to three times, but after that you're on your own. Please read cards distinctly, so I can understand which bits are what. Other than that, go as fast as you like.
Topicality
I think T is a necessary evil in debate. I will vote on it, because it is strong in many cases, and if you're going against T, you will need to answer it well. However, I don't think T should be the crux of a case, and I think T should be run alongside offense on the Aff's case. A 5:00 T 2NR isn't gonna go great with me unless you're crushing on T.
Kritiks
I love kritiks. They're my favorite part of the activity. I think they're an amazing way to spread good and important messages for people with less social power and especially for young adults to learn important skills. I will vote on them same as any other judge, if you win them. I love K affs, so I'll vote on them as well.
IF ANY TEAM SAYS ANYTHING OVERTLY HOMOPHOBIC, RACIST, ABLEIST, OR GENERALLY HATEFUL IN REGARDS TO IDENTITY I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN.
Central '19-'23
Macalester '27
Currently coaching for St. Paul Central, MN.
Hi! I’m Cayden, I use they/them pronouns, please use them! I’m generally quite a neutral judge however I think that making debate an inclusive and fun space outweighs all else.
I have bad hearing so please speak extra loud.This is mostly just that I struggle to hear a speaker if there are other noises going on so please be very quiet when speaking to your partner during a speech.
For email chains: stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com
For questions/comments/concerns (i.e. anything not during a tournament): cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com
Top Level: Please just run whatever you feel best running. I would rather have you run something I’m generally not partial to well than something I like badly. The best debates come from people running what they know best, so do that!
Some notes:
If your args have TW/CW, let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech. I also just generally am not a good judge for death/sexism/racism/etc. good. Your speaks will thank you for not reading those in front of me.
Judge Instruction:
I'm a big fan of judge instruction (who isn't?). I will figure it out if you don't tell me but I will be happier if you tell me :)
Spreading:
See hearing note at the top. Go fast if you want just be clear. I'm not someone who flows off the speech doc. Yes, card doc at the end.
In round non debate stuff:
I will not tolerate being explicitly rude in round. Be respectful, thats it.
T:
I am down for T however my standards on T impacts are higher than the avergae natcir and lower than localcir. I default to models but am also more likely to happily pull the trigger on in round abuse.
Ks:
I'm here for it. I've ran them on both sides and really like watching them. I'm also not someone who will pretend to know your k lit and i want to learn! so explain it to me! Not super huge fan of links of omission without very specific lit to back it. Down for most K args, not a fan of baudy or psycho but I'll judge em fairly, I just won't be the happiest camper.
PTX DAs:
I just want to PSA that i generally try to keep up with elections things happening IRL but sometimes fall behind so give me context for your uq claims.
Weird CPs:
Creative debate=good debate. I might fall behind on your techy strat with it but just give me like 15 secs of explination in an ovw and we are chilling.
K Affs:
I ran one, go crazy, love a good planless debate, love a good framework debate. Some of my favorite rounds have been performance style but also some of my least favorite have been bad K affs. I am probably not your best judge for a fairness bad round. Also, I have only ever heard one good death of debate argument and I think nearly all of the rest are not worth it in front of me.
FWK:I go through this first if its present and it will never be a "wash" for me. I default to a policy maker but also ran basically every fw under the sun so I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Please slow down on this once you get to the rebuttals and I love techy cross applications of other flows to fw.
Condo!:
Generally neutral? I don't super care and I will just vote on the tech tbh.
Also, unless the tournament rulebook specifies disclosure, please don't run disclosure theory in front of me, I believe that if you can win on disclosure theory, you can win on something else.
Anyways! feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round.
Hi I'm tom and I go by He/Him pronouns. I am the former head coach for Roosevelt High school and have been debating for 7 years. I am currently a student at Augsburg.
Please add me to the email chain: Tommilmick@gmail.com
I have debated at all levels of debate and am very familiar with all arguments. For most of my time as a debater I was a strictly policy debater. My normal rounds would usual look like either a soft left policy arg on aff and a Cp and Da heavy neg. However in my last year of debate I heavily used Ks on both the aff and neg specifically Dino earth ( If you want to learn more or have any questions you can ask or email me about it i really enjoy it). My Kritik literature is pretty deep so I can vote on a lot of it. I think debate is about having fun and making arguments that you truly care about and are interested in.
I will vote for any form of argument (Except Baurillard Ks) you make but you have to give me clear reasons why and have a good foundation of evidence for it.
How I weigh most debate args:
Tech -o-------- Truth
my pronouns are she/her
** this paradigm is old and I'm gonna change it soon i promise
*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.
DA's
big stick DA's are lame. your impact should be geared towards outweighing the aff in the same world the aff lives in. big stick can only beat soft left if the aff majorly goofs it, or if you win a tech over truth debate - possible, but a lot of extra work. similarly if the aff is about preventing mass death, then your impact should shoot for something similar.
if you make me laugh, you instantly get at least a minimum of 28 speaker points.
About me:
Hi! My name is Teddy and I am the JV/Varsity coach for Tartan High School & Head Coach for John Glenn Middle School! I've been coaching Policy in some capacity for the last 3.5 years. I've also coached/judged PF, LD, & various speech events. I debated for Farmington for 2 years (Rosemount for 1) and the University of Minnesota for 3 years.
Pronouns: He/They | Email: tmunson.debate@gmail.com
Topics debated: Arms Sales, CJR, Anti-trust, Legal Personhood, & Nukes
Topics coached: Water, NATO, Fiscal Redistro, & IPR
Paradigm:
I think that debate is probably a game that tests hypothetical actions designed to resolve problems outlined by the resolution and/or the 1AC--the AFF should identify an issue, propose a solution, and then prove that that solution resolves the issues identified. The burden of the NEG is only to test the AFFs proposal.
I generally default to tech over truth / whoever I think did the better debating, but can be persuaded to adopt a lens that prioritizes truth. I think that education can potentially spill over and that discussion rounds are good.
I prefer when links are unique or specific to the 1AC/plan. I don't think you have to win the alt to win the K. I am probably not the best judge for theory debates or high theory Ks. Framework & theory arguments framed around education are particularly convincing to me. Rhetoric matters and has an immediate impact.
If you're an LDer reading this paradigm, all of what I said above/below still holds true to the way that I'm going to evaluate your rounds. Theory should be spread through slower or sent out in the documents.
Additional notes:
If your position requires a trigger warning, don't read it in front of me if it's graphic/describing traumatic situations. Send out long analytic/theory blocks if you're going to spread them--otherwise you're relying on my ears alone to flow that (which is not to your benefit). I think ridiculous tech/AI impacts are really entertaining (3-D printed WMDs <3).
amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
Hi! I'm Kate and my pronouns are she/her. You can contact me or add me to the email chain at knozal@macalester.edu
Some background info for you:
I debated for Rosemount 2017-2021 and I have coached at Highland Park (St. Paul) since 2021. I am currently studying sociology and data science at Macalester College. I mostly judge on the local Minnesota circuit.
If I'm your judge:
First, I want you to enjoy debating and feel comfortable. If there is a way I can support you please don't hesitate to reach out beforehand or whenever a concern arises. I also really value education and I hope you do too. It will make me happy to see you doing your best to learn for yourself, and with your partner and opponents.
Second, I am looking for you to write the ballot for me in your last rebuttal. I don't want to have to do any work for debaters when writing my rfd so if you provide me with a clear way to evaluate impacts and how to resolve the round you will be in a great spot. With that being said, I vote off my flow but I'm not perfect, so it's your job to tell me where and what you want on my flow (aka signposting and clarity of speech are important). Tbh, I don't enjoy tricks or out spreading your opponent. I think the best rounds are when debaters are making smart and competitive choices but also considering others in the round and how you conduct yourself affects the community.
Other info about me as a judge:
As far as argument-specific questions go please feel free to reach out to me by email and I'll respond as soon as I can. My best advice to you is to read what you want to! Debates are way more fun when debaters care about and write their own arguments. When I was in high school I went for Ks on the aff and neg.
Hi! I'm Michael O'Neal(onealmicha@gmail.com for email chain purposes) and I am a former 4 year policy debater from Roseville Area High School. I am currently coaching my first year at the same school so I am fresh out of debating. What this means for any debaters I judge is I can keep up with flowing, I know most relevant args to the topic, and coming from a critical point I used to only debate critical theory as Aff and Neg, so any critical case can fairly win with me. Of course I won't be biased towards it though, so I expect link explanations and contextualization, impact calculation and most importantly a consistent and thoroughly explained alternative. Despite all my critical arguments, I also fully understand Topicality and all policy args, so feel free to run any argument with me. My only expectations is respect to me and the opposing team, and having fun while trying your best. To that end I really want to emphasize the importance I place on respect. both to arguments and people, debate is a safe space above all. I won't be severe about accidents or unintentional remarks, but if I consider there to be intentional bullying of a person due to their race, sex, gender, religion, appearance, or personal ability I will take down speaks, or if I find it aggressive enough will end the round. Mental and physical health comes first for me as a coach, judge, and person and so I won't condone abuse. Also, off that serious note, I will give in round feedback, but will take time to give more in depth explanations or help any debater that wants it through either after the round or through email, so just ask.
Background
I am a former debate coach and high school teacher, and I have been the program director the Minnesota Urban Debate League. Currently, I am a technical lead for a software company.
Basics
Whether you win or lose will depend primarily on whether you can tell me a coherent narrative of why you should win. In the second rebuttal, you need to be able to give me a brief, relatively jargon-free, overview of how all the arguments you are going for fit together.
Specific issues:
Exclusivity/Elitism in the debate community. This is my number one concern about this activity. If you are making an argument, advocating a methodology, using a presentation style, or doing anything else that is exclusionary and the other team calls you out on it, I am very likely to vote on this over any other issue. More debate for more students is my primary motivation for participating in this activity, and if the other team convinces me that you hurt participation, I will vote you down.
Education. This is my second priority. Outside of framework debate (see below), this primarily means that you need to demonstrate to me that you have mastered your arguments. This means not relying on cards or pre-written blocks as a crutch. It also means being able to explain your arguments at varying levels of complexity. If you can’t make a Thing Explainer version of your argument, you should think hard about whether you really understand it. Lastly, valuing education means I think that a well-explained analytic is as good as most carded evidence.
If education is a voting issue for your framework arguments, you need to explain exactly how your advocacy does a better job than the other team at educating people about an important issue. This also means you need to justify why that issue is important.
Framing. By framing, I mean the ethical principles I use to weigh competing outcomes. In the absence of any argument about what principles I should use, I will default to consequentialist impact calculus. That said, you should know that I am likely to discount claims about magnitude relative to probability and timeframe. You are better served to focus on the link and internal link debate than on terminal impacts.
If you don't think my default framing is good for your arguments, you need to offer an alternative version. If there's a disagreement between the teams about which frame I should use to evaluate impacts, you should spend time on that debate, because I will evaluate the framing debate before I evaluate any impacts.
Framework. By framework, I mean decision rules about what types of speech acts should be given weight within a debate round. This includes arguments like Role of the Ballot, Topicality, and whatever you call That Thing Your Read Against K Affs. Absent an alternative presented in the round, I will default to role playing a policymaker.
As with framing, if you don't think policymaker is a good framework for considering your arguments, you should present an alternative one. If you win any argument about the appropriate framework to use, I will use the framework you presented as I understand it. You can win the framework debate by demonstrating that your framework does a better job, on balance, at achieving these goals:
-
Improving the climate of the debate community to make it more welcoming, accessible, and inclusive
-
Educating the debaters, judge, and any audience members
I am unlikely to vote on fairness or abuse arguments unless it is an internal link to improving access or education.
Performance Debate. All debate is a performance. If you are trying to gain some offense from the specific nature of your performance, I will treat it exactly as I treat framework generally, which means you’ll need to demonstrate how your performance makes debate more accessible and/or more educational.
Tabula Rasa. I am not artificially tabula rasa. This means there are a lot of things I genuinely don’t know about, but that I won’t pretend that I’m ignorant about issues I am familiar with. If you have a card that makes a factually incorrect claim and the other team makes any kind of coherent challenge to it, I will likely not consider that card at all. If you make an analytic argument that is premised on something factually incorrect, I won’t consider it even if the other team never addresses it.
Specific issues which might plausibly come up in a round and about which I have substantial expertise based on my academic and professional background include: statistical analysis, US state and federal government procedure, US national politics, US history and prehistory, human geography, macroeconomics, and AI/machine learning. If you make a factual error in any of these areas, I am very likely to notice.
Kritiks. I am unlikely to be familiar with the details of your kritiks or the authors on which they are based. This means you cannot rely on me to read between the lines and give you credit for an argument that you didn’t make explicitly. If you have a hard time explaining your K to me, that's a good sign that either you don't understand it yourself, or there isn't any real substance to it. Either way, I'm not likely to vote on it.
Speaker Points. 30 means I think you are the best speaker at this tournament. 29 means I think you deserve win a top 10 speaker award. 28 means I think you might deserve to win a speaker award, but I’m not sure. 27 means I think you don’t deserve to win a speaker award. 26 means I think you don’t deserve to win a speaker award, and I’m going to make sure of it. Anything less means that you were insufferably obnoxious or endangered the physical or emotional well-being of other people in the room.
Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School
Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)
Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)
3x NDT Qualifier
Octas of CEDA '24
Add me to the email chain: kaganwasright@gmail.com
TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good.
I will never vote on an argument based on something that happened out of round. I have no context, it feels too much like policing, and it is a shameful use of my ballot. Introducing arguments like this will be met with a 25, introducing arguments like this that pertain to an individual not present in the round (other debater on their team / coach) will be met with a 20. We will never be able to fully remedy issues in a debate round that is filtered through competitive incentives. Trying to rectify these issues out of round, where discussions are more than 9 or 6 minutes of screaming into laptop and the responsible admin and coaches on your team are present, seems like the best way to go. This includes the pre-round if I am not present. However if something happens in round, you can call them out or stake the debate on it. Also, if you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good,strike me. Goodness gracious!
If you ask for a 30 you will receive a 25.
I flow on paper.
Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.
---
Policy things:
Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.
T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.
CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.
Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.
Do evidence comparison.One good card puts you in a much better spot than 4 stinky ones. Having high quality authors, writing one warrant after another, is preferable to a bunch of one paragraph cards riddled with disconnected word salad.
I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn or praying.
K’s? You would be far better off reading a DA or CP.I am inclined to weigh the AFF. The Top Gun anthem was in my top 10 on Spotify Wrapped. Those are my vibes.
I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.
I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.
Tech over truth.
Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.
Claws out, however you wish to debate.
I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP versus 2 is quite high. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks (if they're good flows).
---
"And he to me, as one experienced:
'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,
all cowardice must here be extinct.
We to the place have come, where I have told thee/
Thou shalt behold the people dolorous
Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"
Judging Paradigm:
Reece Peters (he/him)
Email:
reecepeters1@gmail.com
Experience:
I debated at Eagan High School for four years, three of which being on the Policy Debate team. I have experience judging from lay to circuit, so I'm not averse to any particular style. I've also debated Public Forum and Big Questions - alongside some brief Lincoln-Douglas exposure.
I've been a policy debate coach at Eagan High School for the better part of the last three years and have around four years of formal policy debate judging experience across all range of skill levels.
Although not debating there, I'm a college graduate from the University of Washington with a varied range of interests including Philosophy, Mathematics, Computer Science, Linguistics, and Political Science.
Tag Team:
Yes, it's fine but be respectful of your partner. Speaks will suffer if you are the only one talking.
Default Philosophy:
I tend to abide by the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policy maker.
I will not make arguments for you that aren't on the flow. If you want me to think something, you have to say it in round. In other words, "tech over truth."
Argument Preferences:
No specific argument by default will be rejected by me (barring exclusive or otherwise harmful positions of course.) If you can argue it, I want to hear it.
Topicality- Topicality is certainly a stock issue, but it's up the neg to show why a non-topical aff is "bad" (even if the violation is blatant or conceded.) This is still true in the context of K-affs which don't defend a topical advocacy. Fair warning, however, if a sufficient enough job is done, I do tend to err neg in these rounds.
K- Though I have a modest background in cutting, running, and judging Kritiks, I've never had the greatest relationship with hyper dense or esoteric K-theory (think Deleuze-esque.) If you are going to run these types of arguments, be prepared to give clear and compelling rebuttals which tell the story of the K.
Theory- I have a really hard time voting for a theory position that doesn't take a significant portion of the last two speeches unless it's cold conceded (significant determined by the context of the round.) In round abuse is key for the most convincing ballots but not necessary.
Condo- I like condo bad arguments more than most judges, but don't expect reasoning which boils down to "I'm overwhelmed" to secure the win.
Performance- no issue with it!
Presentation Preferences:
Speed is totally fine with me (350+ wpm), but I find my ability to flow comes best when it is clear. I love it when tags are slowed down, and analytics especially need a clearer (often slower) explanation compared to card text. Even card text should be slowed down if you want me to note a specific internal warrant.
In general, abide by the rule that if you want me to pay specific attention / vote on something later in the round, it's vital that you emphasize it. I understand it's frustrating to hear things like "I didn't have that on my flow" or "that was new in the last speech," so for both of our sakes, make sure you are signposting, sticking to roadmaps, and giving clear overviews.
In the same vein, I hate purposefully obfuscated arguments just to bamboozle the other team. To get a gist of my brightline, removing position names in the doc is about as far as I'd push it. Answering clarifying cross-ex questions with purposefully confusing jargon / tautologies, hidden theory, or purposefully mislabeling positions are surefire ways to tank your speaks.
Looking at me while giving your speech will give you a ton of information about how it's being received (am I thinking, flowing, nodding, confused-looking, typing, time-concerned etc.) This can be utilized to your advantage, as, I am quite expressive for the most part.
Behavior Preferences:
If I were to emphasize any of these categories the most, it would be this one. Please please please make the debate space an inclusive, empathetic, and (dare I say) fun activity for all participants. Belittling, mocking, or name-calling your opposition is not an effective rhetorical tactic, and you'll often find it has the opposite effect on the round results.
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.
Debate History:
4 years debating in Wisconsin from 1999-2003.
Coaching @ Washington Technology Magnet School in Saint Paul since 2013.
First off - yes, you can tag team so long as it doesn't turn into a yelling fight.
Generally, I take points off for using too much speech time, not using all your time, being overly aggressive without warrant during CX, saying things that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc.
In the old days, I would have just called myself TABS (Tabula Rosa, or blank slate.) In general, I'm comfortable voting on most kinds of arguments, although I often find myself deciding many JV and V rounds on framework due to a lack of clash elsewhere in the debate.
My background is in Chemistry and Physics, so I have at best a debate level knowledge of much of the K literature. That being said, I'm very comfortable with the technical aspects of debate, so label your arguments well and explain yourself in your rebuttals and I should have a good idea about what is going on. That said, I'm sensitive to punching down, so if you have a "funny" aff be careful that it is also respectful.
Debated 4 years at Roseville Area High School '14-'18
Coached for 2 years at Minneapolis Washburn High School '18-'20
yes to email chain: drossini21@gmail.com
for virtual debate, clarity over speed
I would like everyone to remain civil and there to be respect between teams. No matter how heated the debate gets it ends when the time runs out. That being said, please let there be clash. Debate is supposed to be fun, and clash makes it fun. Just have fun and do your best.
"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 :)
Debate Background
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 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.
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:
- 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
- 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.
- 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
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.
Clash debates, K aff: 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 debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. 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.
Clash debates, K on the neg: 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.
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.
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:
E-mail for the chain: zack@zackstach.com
I have a background in debate as a debater, coach, and judge on the local and national circuits. I have coached successful teams in Michigan and Indiana. I'm looking forward to becoming more acquainted with the debate community where I now reside in Minnesota.
Paradigm
I am open and willing to vote for any and all positions and frameworks. That being said, I do have some preferences. I do not allow these personal preferences into the round as I strictly like to evaluate the round according to the line-by-line argumentation I see on my flow and the framework arguments set before me. Depending on the round, this isn't always clear. In the event that teams are not doing any (or enough) specific evidence/analysis comparison or have failed to establish a clear framework for round evaluation, here are some of my preferences:
"Policy" vs "K" framework
If you ask me outside of a round, I'll tell you that my preference is for a robust policy debate that exists solely in the post-fiat world. This does not mean you can't run a kritik or a critical affirmative in front of me. However, if neither team establishes a calculus for weighing pre-fiat vs post-fiat implications, I'm likely to default to my preference for policy.
Theory
Generally, 80% truth - 20% tech.
I think there is some justification and necessity for Negatives to explore a wide variety of counter-advocacies and topicality arguments in an effort to equalize ground. If forced to intervene, this framework would serve as a baseline for evaluating standards for fairness, abuse, and education.
This doesn't mean that the affirmative can't argue or win a "___ CP is abusive/illegitimate " argument in front of me. We all know that even when the negative has ample ground, they will still try to stretch it. Affirmatives have every right to maintain a fair division of ground.
Generally, I favor the view that a counter-advocacy (CP, kritik alternative, etc) should be positionally competitive as described by Brett Bricker: https://bit.ly/2UIXu44
It's probably fair to say that theory debates have had the most actual effect on shaping the way we debate. In other words, over the course of time, there have been real world impact to theory debates. Keeping that in mind, while I believe you need to prove in-round abuse, I also believe you need to win a scenario for future abuse/harm. To me, this impact analysis is what moves a theory argument beyond whining ("We weren't prepared for this; it's abusive") to a righteous defense of the activity.
Speaker Points
I like to award speaker points for:
- Clean, persuasive line-by-line clash and analysis
- Clear and effective speech structure; clear sign-posting, a roadmap that is strategic and clean, no hopping back and forth
- Compelling speech; using tone and speed changes to highlight arguments and increase engagement
- Creativity
Here are some ways to lose speaker points:
- I don't think the ability to share evidence relieves you of the obligation to be clear.
- Rudeness in speeches or CX.
Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before the round.
add me to the chain: mariestebbings@gmail.com
last updated: 12/18/2023 (deleting outdated sections, reorganizing, expanding ethics)
background: minneapolis south ‘19 (toc, primarily ran kritikal arguments), light coaching for minneapolis south in ‘19-20. i judge a few national & udl tournaments every year.
online debate: 20% slower please! if my camera is off i’m not there.
tldr: you do you; i will be happiest judging whatever you find exciting/strategic and have spent quality team researching. tech > truth insofar as i try to stifle any lingering debate biases and give an objective decision based on the flow. i won’t write a ballot on an argument that wasn’t made in-round and i try not to impose my opinion on what is true, with the exception of violent/oppressive arguments*. i mostly judge clash debates and my voting record is pretty even.
--
below are some notes on evaluation rules i abide by & guidelines on how to explain arguments, win, & earn high speaks
general: arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be evaluated. i will always follow the ‘ballot of least resistance’ and make the laziest decision possible; tell me what my rfd should say. instructing me on what you believe the key issues are, how you believe arguments interact with each other, and engaging in comparative analysis will help you tremendously.
evidence comparison: i skim evidence throughout the debate. i won’t incorporate my thoughts on your evidence quality into my rfd unless it’s necessary to resolve an argument, but i think a certain degree of judge intervention is necessary in debates over evidence quality to maintain reasonable debate (ex. you can't blatantly lie about what a card says if the other team points out you're lying). i enjoy judging well-researched rounds and think debaters who spend time finding good evidence should be rewarded.
speaker points: ~28.6 is average, ~29.3+ is deserving of a speaker award. being clear, knowing your evidence, making strategic decisions, hard-hitting cx questions/answers -> high speaks. obviously not flowing the debate -> low speaks. if i catch you clipping (repeatedly skipping ~three or more words in cards), i will drop your speaker points regardless of whether the other team points it out.
please flow: i will think you’re silly if you ask for a doc with unread cards deleted unless the prior speech was egregiously skipping around, i will think you’re silly if you respond to an unread or dropped off case, i will think you’re losing the round if you don’t respond to substantive analytics or follow a line-by-line structure.
cx: is binding and i usually flow it.
framework: debates over counter-interps/models make intuitive sense to me. i’m not opposed to 2ars that solely go for impact turns to framework but you should invest hefty amounts of time in framing my decision.
t: i really appreciate model comparisons (caselists, lost/gained neg ground, etc.). please define what reasonability means if you go for it. i never have a ton of topic knowledge & will need extra explanation for acronyms and topic norms.
kritiks: tech > truth means i won’t create my own arbitrary framework interpretation. the more specific your analysis is to the opposing team’s arguments, the better chance you have of winning. aff teams could generally improve their link answers, and neg teams could generally improve their alt solvency.
cp theory: i default to judge kicking cps if asked. the more obviously abusive your counterplans are, the harder it’s going to be for me to suppress a gut-check reaction to cp theory.
das: specific/quality ev > recent ev (explain why the date matters) > quantity of ev.
case: i love case debates that dig into the ev and point out logical holes/inconsistencies in the aff’s ev and internal link chains.
theory: please don’t spread at max speed through your theory blocks. i find counter-interps helpful for framing the majority of theory debates.
misc: re-highlighted ev must be read, not inserted. sending exact text for perms, theory interps/violations, and/or framework interps is a good practice. strict on 1ar-2ar consistency, will give some leeway if the 2nr had new arguments/warrants. no new 2ar cross-applications across different flows.
be nice to new debaters: in clearly asymmetrical debates (ex. a team with 5 bids vs a team at their first varsity tournament), taking the time to slow down and 'over-explain' your arguments so all the debaters can engage with the round is a much more persuasive strategy for high speaker points than outspreading and out-jargoning your less experienced opponents.
--
*ethics: facilitating an environment where debaters are reasonably protected from immediate hazards to their wellbeing overrides my commitment to attempting to be a neutral arbitrator. i reserve the right to auto L with the lowest speaks possible if a debater’s in-round words or actions are oppressive or threaten anyone’s safety. however, i prefer to avoid using the ballot as a punitive instrument and assume fixable ignorance (not intentional violence) on ‘gray area’ issues.
while i strongly empathize with frustration over the community’s seeming inability to address intra-debate violence, including the continued presence of individuals who are oppressive or harm others, i refuse to adjudicate out-of-round grievances in a competitive context. if desired, i will assist any debater in talking to a tournament administrator, ombudsperson, or coach instead.
--
good luck, have fun! feel free to email me with any questions.
Head Coach for St. Paul Central(MN) from 2021(water topic)->present
Pronouns are they/she
I would like to be on the email chain @ stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com
Email for questions/contact @ marshall.d.steele@gmail.com
For 24-25 --- Serving as Program Development Fellow at the MNUDL so judging a little less than past years on local circuit
---------------------------
TLDR for prefs/strikes
I appreciate good judge instructions and am neutral on most arguments. Good judge for k/fw debates and fine for everything else. Will regrettably vote on just about anything that isn't you being overtly hostile to your opponents. If you just wanna know my K aff thoughts I will happily vote on em and find those debates very interesting. Be nice and run arguments you like and we'll get along fine. I don't check speech docs until the end of the round so clarity is probably your friend on blocks.I am mostly a clash judge but will still consider/would like to see good 2R top level conceptualization of the round. I value technical drops and all that fun clash debate stuff, it's just to say that actual persuasive argumentation and analysis are also nice.
---------------------------
Judging Takes:
Tech V Truth: Tech over truth but making overtly illogical arguments at high speed to get the other side to drop them is gonna be worse for your speaks than well-thought-out positions.
Speed- My only preference on speed is that you slow down for dense analytic blocks especially / fw / theory
Kritikal Affs- go for it. I like them. Don't assume I'll automatically understand your lit or import my analysis - the same standard as any policy arg. Probably a better-than-average judge for you if you're running queer theory(though misuse of the term "overkill" is a personal pet peeve).
Topicality - I'm pretty neutral on T. just please don't forget to at minimum say "voter for xyz" and I'm open to hear your interp of the topic.
Counterplans - I think a lot of counterplans really test the limits of tech>truth with the actual text / claimed solvency mechanism. that said if the 2ac doesn't say anything I'll buy it. I don't have many strong opinions on counterplans. default to perms as a test of competition. Am generally not a fan of counterplans with 5+ (functionally contradictory) planks. Judge kick as a default
Kritiks - I like kritiks generally, I think more kritiks should utilize offense about their theory of power to prove why the aff is materially also wrong. I.e, if you're running security and the aff's main impact, is predicated on a tech race that should at minimum be defense to the impact if you're winning a theory of power that precludes tech races as a real scenario.
Theory: I probably won't love watching a debate where both 2Rs are theory but am still down for those debates. Will likely just default to the tech to determine most in round opinion on theory. Condo vs 1 off is probably the exception in that unless the neg literally forgets to answer im gonna have a hard time writing that ballot.
Default to tournament rules on ethics challenges.
Feel free to ask questions on anything listed or not listed above, always happy to yap about my debate opinions.
----------------
Random Notes
Plan flaws are awesome and under-utilized
Not a fan of random swearing, if you feel you're argument is more rhetorically powerful with it that's cool but "that's a dumb F***ing question" in cx will get your speaks dropped severely. Just because college debaters over-use it doesn't make it persuasive.
I didn't think I'd ever have to write this but overtly calling your opponents dumb or bad at debate or anything in that nature is a really quick way to 26-land. Yes, this includes when you think you are whispering quietly and are in fact quite loud.
Prep stealing is not epic
sigh will vote on hidden aspec
how is farm bill still a DA - this was "Unique" when I started debating
Plans and aff "clarification"
I have seen an increase trend towards aff teams reading normative "solvency advocacy" evidence that they would *like* to be descriptive of the plan, that includes a variety of clarifications and specifications *not* in the plan text. Plans are determined by *the plan*, not by aspirational solvency evidence that includes things not in the plan. The aff does get to clarify. There is a mechanism for that. It's the plan. If the aff chooses not to clarify something in the plan, then it is determined by 1) binding cx clarification in situations where the neg does not contest that clarification and 2) normal means as determined by logical argument and descriptive evidence if the neg does choose to contest. normative solvency evidence is not a description of normal means. the decision not to clarify something in the plan is a CHOICE - as with all choices, it comes with strategic upside AND strategic baggage. if something is important for aff solvency, but not in the plan, you are running a grave risk of not being able to access it.
Risk
I think too many judges address issues as absolute “yes/no” questions. I am much more likely to think of things in terms of relative risks. That said, relative risks can be EXTREMELY small.
Counterplans
If debated equally, I am prone to thinking that counterplans which are desirable because they result in the affirmative, are, generally speaking, not competitive and make for worse debates. At a fundamental level, I don’t believe they express disagreement with the affirmative plan, which I sort of think is the whole point of debate. That said, I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans.
I lean heavily neg on all other counterplan theory questions.
If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.
Kritiks
If you are going for a kritik in front of me, the place its most likely to fall apart for me is the alt. You would be well advised to explain what your alternative does and how it is able to meaningfully accomplish its own objectives. If someone is going for a kritik against you, the easiest way to lose me is to drop a “checklist” impact calc claim: “turns case, solves case, X first, extinction inevitable, etc”
Topicality
I generally view this as question of competing interpretations. I’ve become worse over the years for “silly” topicality arguments. I’m generally easily persuaded that precision is the most important standard. For instance, if the military has a precise and official definition of “presence” it would be difficult to persuade me to disregard that for the sake of limits.
As it may come up, you deserve to know I’m probably a better judge than most for “T-significantly”. Obviously I’m not saying it’s an auto-win, but against some tiny new aff, its definitely a credible option for the neg.....my brain will judge fairly, but my heart can't get over its first love (the negative).
Planless affs
I will do my best to fairly adjudicate any argument made in front of me. No argument is ever procedurally disqualified in advance. I will judge only based on arguments made in the round, rather than arguments I may believe to be “true” that are not well defended within the debate. That said, debate is a persuasion activity, and when arguments are advanced well by both sides, you should know that my proclivities are that debate is better when the affirmative defends topical action. Again, its not impossible, and I will, as always, attempt to judge fairly based on arguments made in the round, but you deserve to know my preferences…..I don’t think they are a secret.
If you are advancing this strategy in front of me, I will say that I think teams sometimes try to “adopt” by attempting to win the “race to the middle”. In my experience this tends to help negs win that “topical version solves aff offense” more than it helps the aff win "link defense" to things like limits and fairness. My advice to you is that you are actually probably better off sticking with a more hardline position that simply impact turns topicality rather than spending time trying to minimize the “link” to the aff standards.
— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —
Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.
I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.
—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—
Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.
Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.
- I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
- If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
- if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com
My internal speaks scale:
- Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
- 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
- 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
- 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.
Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.
Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.
- I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.
Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!
Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!
- I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
- There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.
*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***
- norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
- gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
- norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate
K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!
- A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
- most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
- in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
- Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
- Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
- Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)
he/they
debated for glenbrook north for 4 years in high school
2a/1n
put me on the chain: paulicydeb8@gmail.com
please time yourselves and keep track of your own prep! if you don't how much prep time is allowed or what the speech times are, you can always ask me.
I haven't debated since high school, so please do not assume that I know the topic super well
don't be queerphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. - i will dock speaks and vote you down
flow and do line-by-line - skill development is more important than reading perfect arguments from a script
don't call me judge, calling me by my first name is cool
prioritize clarity over speed
tech over truth
tell me the main reason why I should vote aff/neg at the top of 2ar/2nr
tag team cx is cool but only if you're not interrupting your partner
i will not count args made after the timer goes off - but cx is binding
Top:
They/Them
Competition: Apple Valley LD 2019-2023, UMN CX 2023-Present (Nukes) (Clean Energy)
Coaching: Edina LD 2023-2024 (Right to Housing, Fossil Fuels, and Military Presence). Prior Lake CX 2024-Present (IPP)
Camp: MDAW Summer 2023 (Congress, PF, Speech, Policy, and LD), NSD Summer 2023 (LD--Carbon Pricing)
kaceewellsjudgingdocs@gmail.com
24-25 Note: I am mainly coaching novice and JV, my topic knowledge is more limited than it has been in the past, err on the side of over explanation.
TL;DR--I have judged and debated too long from too many angles to care at all about the content or argument choices you make. Debate smart, clear, and strategically and you'll have no problem getting my ballot. Generally my answer to "Do you care if I do Y?" is going to be no, do what makes you comfortable. I care about making the most correct and fair decision I can and that everyone in the debate is treated with respect, that's it. Try to be on time for your own sake, you probably don't want me deciding your bubble round with 2 minutes of decision time. I do not open the doc when I am flowing--If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it.
1—I am absolutely dead inside in terms of arguments I will vote on anything and everything if won and have minimal preferences. I will vote on spark, warming good, skep, condo, derrida, ect.
2—I have a lot of feelings about in round conduct—sexism, transphobia, homophobia, racism, micro aggressions or not, are things I will intervene and end debates on. If you are overly rude, dismissive, or cruel expect a 27.
3—I am tech over truth and check my biases at the door.
4—I have been an ideologically flexible debater for my entire career—read Ks, policy args, and phil in HS LD and now mainly read policy arguments. I did four years of LD and now do college policy, have been a 2A/1N and currently 2N/1A.
5—I will not, repeat, I will not ever flow from the doc or back flow. I will clear you three times and then give up. Low speaks will be in your future. Speed is not a problem for me, clarity is.
6—I will read evidence is it is necessary for my decision OR I have been instructed to read it, but if you can’t explain the evidence to me I will not vote on it.
7—Disclosure is an intrinsically good norm both before the debate and on the wiki after—if you send a screenshot of your wiki to the email chain and if it is good I will bump speaks +0.1.
8—I like strategic, interesting, and cohesive debaters. if you want to do that with a plan, with phil, with a K, go for it.
9—Feel free to email me or find me with questions before and after debates—I love debate and would be more than willing to answer any questions.
10—Not a big fan of theory—deeply persuaded by reject the argument and reasonability. However, I am still tech over truth and have voted for everything from AFC to spec status to condo. I don’t hold really any thoughts on condo (except LD--I err that infinite condo probably decimates the AFF, granted I've
11—You can post round me at your own risk--I care a lot about this activity and think hard about my decisions and will always do my best to explain them, but pointless arguing with me will get you nothing.
12--Yes you can tag team, yes flex prep, yes email chains, preference for cameras on but won't penalize you in any way, no I do not care where you sit or if you stand for speeches, call me kacee, and let me know if you have any other questions.
13--You do you, not you do me. As a debater strategic value over coded personal desire to read an argument, I read arguments I thought I could win with and that always came first for me, I really value cut throat strategic debating, but I would also love to see you go for arguments you clearly believe and are passionate about--don't try to be me I've listened to myself debate more times than I can count, but I do want to listen to how YOU debate.
14--If any part of your strategy is premised on personal attacks against individuals, judges, or coaches and their identities unrelated to the content of the debate, I am not a good judge for you---please strike me.
15--Ev ethics unless truly egregious (e.g. removing the word "not") should be debated out via theory.
16--Flow checks and prep stealing lose speaks
17--If you're on time and I don't have to clear you you start at a 28.5, otherwise a 27.5, pick your poison.
18--Don't read bio-essentialist arguments in front of me. I will absolutely vote you down and give a lecture on why you shouldn't be transphobic instead of an RFD.
19--Debate is hard, I get it--if you need a breather ask for it, a W in tabroom you won't remember in two years is not worth your mental health and well being.