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

TLDR (my round is starting):

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

Decision Calculus

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

Tendencies

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

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

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

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

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

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

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

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

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Updated September 2023: Realistically I'm exclusively judging locally and mostly novice debate, so 95% of this isn't useful for you.

Novice Coach Lincoln Douglas at Eagan High School (Somewhere in 2015ish - 2019, 2023-Present)

"Debate Coach" at Hopkins High School (2014)

Lincoln Douglas Debater and Extemporaneous Speaker at Eagan (2010 - 2014)

Please signpost. Please. For the love of all that is good, Signpost!

Disclosure: I don't like disclosure theory. If you really want to run it go ahead, but I'm not a judge who will actually consider a lack of disclosure problematic. In the same vein, I don't care if you don't send me the case in advance. If evidence sounds sketchy, I'll call for it after the round. Furthermore, I'm sympathetic to arguments against disclosure, as my personal opinion is that mandatory disclosure further makes it harder for smaller schools at the national circuit to be competitive.

Theory / Topicality: Not my favorite but I'm willing to hear it. Please understand that I default very strongly towards drop the argument and reasonability. This means if your opponent is being abusive call them out on it, and I'll drop the argument. If you are not running theory in a fully developed nice little shell, I will make the following assumptions for you: education and fairness are voters but whichever one matters more is left ambiguous, that the argument should be dropped whenever possible, and that I should evaluate the argument purely on the role it plays in this round, instead of some broader argument about which positions I would rather see take hold in the current "debate-meta".

Kritiks: I like critical arguments. I did not enjoy how they were being run when I was judging circuit in 2015-2018. I think if you want to run a full critical position it needs to do a few things:

A: It needs to be fully developed. If your "k" is a 2 minute long blitz of arguments with very broad and poorly formed links (both to the Aff/Neg and internally) then I'm going to not care for it. If you're willing to show that you did the reading required for a critical position, and that you're willing to engage in a debate with strong clear links between arguments in a way that flows logically and is well developed then I'll be a happy potato. The rule of thumb for me is the following: if you're spending less than 4 minutes on the K / off-case / whatever you want to call it then you're probably under-covering it. If you're running multiple critical arguments, I'm not going to be happy. That anger will be taken out on your speaks, and potentially will cause you to lose the round.

B: It needs to be clearly laid out logically, I want to see a proper framework, (I lean in favor of cases that don't utilize "Roll of the ballot" arguments but that's purely a framing issue) which in part tells me what arguments I should evaluate, how to evaluate them, why I care, etc etc etc. We're back to novice fundamentals, if you can't explain to me why I should care in a clean and concise manner, I don't see a reason to care.

C: If content includes anything that may be troubling to people in the round, you should make that clear PRIOR TO STARTING YOUR SPEECH. Really this should be the case for all positions, but especially with critical arguments that involve fundamental issues with society / how we frame and understand the world around us.

Speed: I coach novices. I primarily interact with parent judges when it comes to reading ballots. I am somewhat mildly comfortable evaluating arguments relating to dense Marxist positions and to a lesser extent things like Meta-ethics / epistemology. I am not comfortable evaluating those arguments when they're being blitzed out faster than slugs from a railgun. To get an idea of how "out of the circuit" I am, I haven't judged a circuit tournament in a few years, and I plan to keep it like that for the foreseeable future. Slow down for tags, key framework elements like values / standards, and author names. if I don't flow them, I don't evaluate them.

I will say slow twice. Then if you're still too fast, I simply will stop typing. I will yell clear twice. I normally give you five seconds of "grace" to fix yourself before alerting you. Don't presume I caught everything you were saying during the few seconds before and after yelling slow / clear.

Extensions: They need a claim, warrant, and impact. You need to articulate all three very clearly. If someone walks in to the 1AR/2NR and listens to your extensions they should be able to construct a decent synopsis of the case itself. If you don't put in the time and effort to extend things, I won't put in the time and effort required to extend things on my flow. If points are dropped, you can be brief with extending them but I need the claim and impact very explicitly stated still. "My opponent dropped Contention 1 subpoint D subheading iii line 13 so extend it across the flow" Isn't an extension that I'll flow.

Speaker points: I generally evaluate speaker points on things like clarity, argument structure and development, extensions (please for the love of all that is good extend properly), and overall how you carry yourself in the round. If you are openly rude to your opponent or to me, don't plan on getting high speaks. I generally have my speaks average around 27, and I mean that. This isn't "average is 27 but most people get a 28.5", but rather "I will average 27 speaks. Roughly half get more, roughly have get less" so don't be surprised if after a particularly rough round if you leave with a 25 because you didn't care to extend properly. A general description of points and what they mean can be found below. I will modify points due to three things: first, I will deduct speaks if you come up and shake my hand like if I'm a competitor after the round (That was a rule before COVID, it's still a rule now). Second, if you're rude, condescending, overly aggressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc etc etc. If you don't make this round a healthy environment to compete in, I will tank your speaks to the bottom of the marianna trench. Third, I'll give speaker points to people who provide clean roadmaps. Signposting is a lost art in debate. Bring it back.

25: Rough round, you made several mistakes, each of which is a good reason to not vote for you. This is a good rebuttal redo round.

26: One or two major mistakes, maybe some misarticulating of offense but not near the point where it's a severe issue. You should probably reread your evidence, work on extensions, and work on clarity.

27: average. Some mistakes, some good ideas. Clarity is fine. You showed up.

28: refreshing. I'm optimistic that you'll get a speaker award at least. Clarity is solid, speed is perfectly paced. Extensions were good. Arguments were well crafted. Good job.

29: Very confident. I'm happy with almost everything. Maybe minor nitpicking.

30: Like a 29 but even rarer. Very little really differentiates values in the 29-30 range, it's more about how clean things went in round.

Hi, my name is Maddie. I debated LD in Neenah, WI for four years. I competed at both national level and Wisconsin level tournaments. (I went to Glenbrooks and Badgerland every year and then CFL's twice so like a decent amount of experience).

Email: alft0003@umn.edu

I am able to understand most arguments, I ran Kritiks, theory, CP's, Plantexts, etc. (pretty much everything). However, I'm not a huge fan of really dense philosophy stuff. Not my fav, but do what you gotta do. If you run dense philosophy or Kritiks I want you to really explain it to me and tell me how it functions in the round. If you can't do that, you won't win the round.

One thing I hate is unnecessary topicality. Unless an argument is CLEARLY untopical, you should not be running topicality. I think it's a cop-out. I will most likely just not flow it and ignore it but whatever you wanna do.

I am fine with spreading. I spread as a debater. It has to be clear and for the love of god DO NOT breathe like a dying fish. It gets on my nerves and takes away from your argument as much as mumbling does. If I can't understand you due to clarity or breathing, I will not flow your argument.

Framework is super important!!!! Please use it as a weighing mechanism!!! Tell me how you win the round with it!!!! I love that!!!! Impacts are super important as well and it’d just be the best if you tied that to your framework. Like damn, that’s a good round.

I won't flow cross because I don't really see a reason to do so??? If you want me to put something on the flow from your cross, please state so and I will do it. Also, do not steal cross or talk over each other. Happened to me a ton as a debater and I really just don't think it's appropriate. Flex prep is fine with me, use your time the way you'd like to.

I'd say that I'm pretty fair with speaks. I know that what the ballot gives as a recommendation is not representative of what good speaks are. The only thing that will dock your speaks is rudeness (towards me or your opponent), any arguments that contain racism, homophobia, sexism, or xenophobic ideas, etc. (I will drop you automatically and give you a 20), or if you're unclear when you speak.

You can pretty much do whatever you want, just don't be a jerk. I would love to hear any arguments that you put forward! Debate is supposed to be fun and a place to express yourself. Have fun with it! Give me your weird and random arguments! I'd love to hear them from you.

Most importantly, have fun :) (Updated 01/11/22)

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

Background

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

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

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

T

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

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

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

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Non-negotiables

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

Traditional LD Paradigm

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

Congress: I am primarily a LD judge. This means that I want to see clash and good questions, not just softballs to your own team or side. I will drop round points to a 1 for anything -ic or -ist (ie homophobic, transphobic, racist etc). I will probably judge 50/50 (1-3 points presentation and 1-3 for content).

Experience: I debated a year of LD, and half a year each of PF and Congress. I student managed for my team the last two years of high school, so I stayed within the community and the brain sphere, and then after graduation came back to coach for Lakeville. I primarily have coached Novice LD so please be kind when running theory and more advanced stuff, and make it clear.

Give me reasons to vote for you but don't assume you have won arguments just because you said them.

I am fine with a bit of speed, but be clear and preferably don't spread.

Sign post, sign post, sign post!

Give me extensions and drops and please make them clean.

Most importantly: Be professional and be respectful.

I absolutely do not need your camera to be on.

I did classic debate for four years when I was in high school and am most comfortable with traditional cases. If you are gonna run anything circuit-y, please do not spread and outline your arguments well

Debated with the Minnetonka debate team in classic format primarily. Currently work with Minnetonka, judging and working with Congress team. Have judged enough LD to be comfortable with the format.

I enjoy seeing creativity in the debate and am comfortable with any speed as long as there is clear annunciation. Unclear speaking can only serve against you.

I like traditional, resolution based argumentation, as well as other traditional tactics.

email: jimmy.d.bohn@gmail.com

I've done 3 years of debate at Hopkins High School. As a judge, I like to see debaters who do well in basic skills and tactics like signposting, extensions, and weighing. I give speaks based on the technique and skill of the debater, so demonstrating skill in something like weighing or framework debate is more important than using confusing language and advanced techniques. Voters and Worlds Comparison/Crystallization are the most critical components I look for in a debate, because they are the summation of the entire round and the section where I am given the reason to vote for or against a debater.

LD is not policy, please do not treat it is as such. That said, speed is fine, provided it is necessary and not speed for speed's sake.

Analysis and critical thought is appreciated.

CX skills weigh heavily.

Topical, non-topical, progressive, narrative, debate the case you wish to debate, I'm happy to judge it.

I prefer if you can speak at a reasonable speed so that you are easily understandable. Also, I prefer if you stay true to the presented arguments and avoid going on unrelated tangents.

I’m a parent judge who has judged LD for 3 years now.

I have mainly judged local tournaments in Minnesota, so only traditional debate.

You should give voters, speak at a slower pace, and explain your argument thoroughly to get my ballot.

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 11

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

Rounds Judged this year (insert any year here): usually between 80-100

***Include me on the email chain (LD, CX)

Background:
I debated for St. Francis High School, in Minnesota, from 1989 to 1993, during which time I debated two years of CX and two years of LD. I also debated four years of CEDA debate, debating for various schools. I have been the Director of Speech and Debate at St. Croix Prep in Stillwater, Minnesota since 2013, and I have coached LD, CX, WSD, PF, BQ and all speech categories. I also teach ninth grade Ancient World Literature at St. Croix Prep.

Overall Philosophy:
I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships of different arguments and/or philosophical ideas. I also believe that competitive debate is an exercise in effective rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos). With all this in mind, I love debates that involve teams that know their position in the debate and are passionate about their arguments. If one team in a debate shows that they care more about their arguments than another team, this definitely can have an impact on how I evaluate the round. I typically evaluate each team’s use of evidence, reasoning, and passion to further their arguments and clash with their opponent’s arguments, hence my previous mention of the role of the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Most importantly: Be consistent, tell a good story, and explain your arguments in the context of what has happened up to that point in the debate. Teams that just read pre-written rebuttal speeches that don't contextualize their arguments don't usually do very well in front of me.

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and warrants. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I am not voting on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, don’t misrepresent your evidence or make it sound “bigger” than it really is, as this can become an embarrassing moment when someone asks me to read the card and I see that it is hot garbage. One last area that I think is important to note is the citation debate. I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources, and that probably stems from other critical (k) positions. However, if it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, there may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond (this is especially the case in LD). I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX debate).

Speed:
Short Version: Be clear and intentional on your tags and author names; you can go faster on your evidence, but I should still be able to understand you. I prefer passion and intensity to speed. Most of my debaters are traditional LD debaters, so I'm not a big fan of circuit speed. Will I flow it if you are slowing for tags and authors? Sure. Will I like it, probably not s'much. In this regard, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you just go on-case and dump a bunch of stuff on the flow, I won't do your work for you.

Long Version: Many of today’s debaters (at least circuit debaters) are not doing much that is different than what has been done in the speed category over the last twenty years. However, I do have some preferences in this regard. When you are speaking at 250+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which invariably leads to miscommunications later on in the extension debate. One request that I have to resolve this issue is that debaters speak more articulate and “slower” in their presentation of their signposting, their claims, and their citations. This really shouldn't slow down the overall presentation of the speech by much, but it should make the presentation of those “flow-able” points more intentional. Additionally, I will not shout "clear" or "slower" if you aren't articulating your signposts, tags, and cites. I will probably just have a pained look on my face. After that, I'll just stop flowing. If you see this, you are probably in trouble, so make a conscious effort to accommodate my speed preference for the signposts, tags, and author last name at the very least. An optimal speed is probably around 200-250 on average for me if you at least slow down for these three areas.

Persuasion:
As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

Preferences:
While I believe, as previously stated, that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some topical awareness in a debate. With that in mind, I would suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic as worded in the resolution, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate. I would say that my favorite debates are debates that are actually directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I do enjoy critical affs that are actually topical). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid and supported rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination:

I really enjoy a great cross examination, especially because it allows debaters to really show their skills when it comes to the interactive part of debate. I think that cross examination is a place that really allows the most prepared debaters to shine. Because of this, I usually determine how I am going to assign speaker points based on a debater's performance in cross-ex. So, please don't ask if you can use the rest of CX as prep. That will always be a big "No."

I am okay with tag-team cross-examination in policy debate to a degree, but I hate it when one debater is clearly the puppet and their partner is the puppet master. This becomes obvious if one debater has no clue how to answer questions posed about what they just read in the speech. That being said, I would encourage you to use tag-team cross-ex as an emergency cord, not as something that should be used frequently.

The Ballot:
Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, as far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

Policy Notes:
As has been mentioned previously, I am accepting of most arguments, as long as the debaters are able to explain the rationale behind running such an argument and the impact that the argument has on the debate. I love direct clash, since I believe that this shows a team’s level of preparedness, especially in policy debate, but I also love good critical discussions as well. Overall, I would say that the biggest issue for me is speed. Please, please, please, at the very least, make your signposting, claims, and cites audibly clear and slower than the rest of your speech. I believe this also offers you the opportunity to add emphasis to these points as well, and in so doing show the passion you have for your arguments.

LD Notes:
For me, everything in Lincoln-Douglas debate should come back to the framework debate (value/criteria). However, if a debater decides to run a policy affirmative (or counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks on the negative), then I will decide the debate accordingly. However, just because you have a plan doesn't mean that the framework debate is automatically a Utilitarianism debate. If the opposing side reads a value and criteria and makes the debate about how we are to evaluate arguments (value/criteria), then you need to be ready for this debate, since (as previously stated) this is my predisposition in LD debate. A debater could win all of their contention level arguments and still lose a debate if they cannot prove that their method for evaluating the arguments should be preferred over their opponent's method. I think that some of the best LD debaters are those that can attack criteria with supporting evidence, or they can prove how they can perm their opponent’s criteria. Ultimately, I will vote on the voting issues presented in the debate (or impact calculus if the debate becomes a Util debate), but I will consider the criteria debate first and last when making any decision. That being said, I will entertain "nontraditional" affirmatives and negative positions in a debate (Topicality, Kritiks, Theory, etc), but you need to explain its relevance to the topic and/or arguments that have already been presented in the debate.

How I vote: I want debaters to tell me why I should vote for their position over their opponent's position. If you just barf a bunch of arguments onto the flow and don't explain how I should evaluate them against what your opponents have said, then I probably won't be too keen on buying in to your "story." I'm not a fan of judge intervention, so don't leave me too much room to make my own decision.

Judge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.

I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have been mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.

I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.

Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.

Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.

Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.

Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.

Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.

Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.

My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.

Add me to the email chain: dean.doneen@gmail.com

I coach LD Debate at Roseville Area High School in MN

Speed is fine under most circumstances, probably not great to plow through Deleuze at top speed though. I'll say clear/slow 3 times max.

Please debate the resolution

27.5 is average speaks

I will not vote for a prioris (this doesn't include thought out deductive argument like an amoral state NC)

If you have a dog, please include a picture at the bottom of your speech doc

I think I flow pretty well and speed is fine, but if you make 6 quick arguments at top speed and don't remind me of them when you give voting issues and I missed one of them, I won't change my vote based off of the argument I missed. I'd encourage your summary of the round to be at a slower pace.

What a 30 looks like

- I learned something from you

- Your time management was great

- It is clear you are very knowledgeable on everything you read and arguments you made

- You won the round

- You did not do any tricks/ you did not read any a prioris

- You had a great under view/voting issues in your final speech summarizing the debate

- You spoke slower than your opponent (this can still be spreading)

Policy Making

- Advocacy needs to be clear. This doesn't necessarily mean a plan text.

- I won't weigh for you

Critical Theory

- You should have a ROB

- Jean Baudrillard ruined my life, and for that I am forever grateful

- I'm uncomfortable judging debate rounds centered around identity politics. You can do it and you won't lose any speaks, but these debates are harder for me to evaluate.

- Just because an activity produces meaning (a sign) does not mean it is harmful or "co-opts" something. Signs are an important part of communication, if not the entirety of it.

Theory

- I default to reasonability, no RVIs, drop the argument, and it is getting harder every day to convince me otherwise.

- Sometimes I just won't vote for your shell if I think it's really bad.

- I don't believe that Theory is not a strategy. If abuse is real, go right ahead.

- If you consider yourself a theory/tricks debater, I am not the judge for you

- I will not vote for disclosure theory in LD. However, disclosing is probably a good thing to do and parity in document access is important

- I will not vote on potential abuse.

Tricks

- don't

Lay Debate (MN Circuit)

- I don't really care much about the value debate. You could literally just say your value is "good" and I'd buy it

- The standard/criterion debate DOES matter, very much so.

- Being easy to weigh isn't a real reason why your ethics are best

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program in Lakeville. I'm in my 9th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

I strongly believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and KNOW your case. This will guide my critique of your debate.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

If you plan to argue the resolution is unfair, I am not your judge. I believe it is a waste of time to complain about the resolution rather than doing what you should be doing, debating it.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. I expect you to take your RFD graciously as well as shake your opponent’s hand.

Thank you and Good luck!!

I am a parent judge and this is my seventh year judging LD. I am most comfortable judging traditional rounds and mostly judge local tournaments. Don't spread in front of me, I probably won't be able to keep up. If I don't have it on my flow, I won't judge it. I don't evaluate new in the 2. I am not familiar with critical literature and most philosophy. If you plan on reading this in front of me, explain it really well. Signpost, impact and weigh. Give me the ballot story/voters/crystallization in the last rebuttal.

Please send your case to my email at mahender.ginuga@gmail.com

My Background: I have coached PF and LD and have been involved with Congressional Debate.

PF: Factors I consider when judging a round:

1. Who had a better framework, and who upheld it better (I realize this isn’t LD, but I want to see which team has a better view of The Big Picture)

2. The strength of the case.

3. The quality of the arguments presented:

a. Links

b. Harms

c. Impacts

4. Evidence:

a. Dates – how recent is it – give me a date in the citation

b. Author credibility – give me credentials

c. Specificity of content/applicability to case

d. NOTE: Quality is preferred over quantity: Spreading doesn’t belong in PF!

5. Cross Fire:

a. I’m paying attention! Rounds have been won and lost here!

b. No interrupting. If you ask a question, I want to hear their answer.

c. In the end, debate is about promoting civil public discourse – please remember why we are here.

6. Summary/Final Focus:

a. Crystalize the round and give me the three most important voting issues.

b. Don’t tell me how I am going to vote “this is why you will be voting Neg” – ask me for my vote. Nobody likes being told what to do, and it’s not an effective persuasive strategy.

7. Special note to Aff: Your case must have offense.

For Congress:

For LD:

Major considerations for me as a judge:

1) Value clash seems unnecessary...aren't you all valuing something good? I rarely vote on the value debate.

2) Criterion/standard is VERY important. Please keep in mind: just because we use your framework to weigh the round doesn't mean YOU WIN. I vote for the debater who meets the agreed-upon framework the best. Whosever framework we use, I will use that lens to review the round.

3) Impacts are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and should be stated IN ALL SPEECHES. Otherwise, I am witnessing two debaters throw evidence and arguments at each other, but I don't know what to do with this content. TELL YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECHES! How does what you are saying influence the round?

4) I hate nuclear war/extinction arguments. Like, super hate. The only reason I would vote for you if you use nuclear war impacts is if the resolution is actually about nuclear weapons. Other than that, I will not buy slippery slope arguments. I truly hate extinction arguments...like, truly truly.

5) I don't like debate theory. It seems like an excuse not to debate the actual topic. It avoids thoughtful discourse about the topic at hand. I'll listen to topic-appropriate theory/philosophy, but not debate theory.

6) Speed does not equal winning. Just getting as muchstuff on the flow as possible is not a tactic for a win.

7) Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or ableist arguments will be automatically downvoted. I understand that arguments that contain these ideas might be made by accident. However, you need to work with your team/coaches if I bring this up to you on a ballot. There is no excuse to be denigrating a group of people.

Updated 1/6/24, pre MSHSL State tournament (post sections). Have some thoughts from sections at the top of the PF/LD paradigm.

ImpactInstituteDebate.com

Background:

Graduated Bloomington Jefferson HS in 2012. Did Policy/Extemp and a little Congress. Wasn't great at any of these events.

Coach of the Bloomington Debate team 2018-present. Our program is now exclusively a Congress team, we did some PF in 18/19. Judge mostly Congress, but get ~12 assorted PF/LD rounds a year.

I work in finance doing institutional asset management when I'm not coaching. I also play and coach ultimate frisbee in my free time and watch any and all sports, do with that what you will.

Disclosure:

I love to discuss specific feedback, either email (below) or find me after a round. Email after a tournament (Congress especially) is great if you want more feedback. I like to disclose post round when allowed, tho likely will NOT at State this year unless both teams read this and ask for disclosure. That said, will likely give you some feedback I hope to help you if it's not the last round of the day.

Two important rules (all formats)

1. Be respectful. If you say anything offensive (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.) I will not hesitate to give you the auto-loss or the worst score I can.

2. I'm always down to give you more feedback, email is great (arthurpaulharris at gmail dot com) or just come find me at a tournament. I will answer any question about something on any ballot I put out.

Short Paradigm [PF/LD/CX] (update 1/6/24):

If there's an email chain pls add me, email above. The debate will be best if you do what you do best - I'll do my best to adapt to you.

For PF/LD: I will vote on what's on the flow (or do my absolute best to). I flow on paper but my pen is still decently fast (see below about speed). I'm probably dead center on tech vs truth if you think those are contradictory, but if you want this to be circuit LD/PF and it's a MSHSL tournament, you'll be disappointed.

PF people - If you need a shortcut for my paradigm I align with Christian Vasquez's paradigm almost exactly (I assume y'all will be more familiar as he's gotta be like 5x the judge/debate educator I am). If you want to read actual coherent thoughts on PF debate, check that out, it's probably the paradigm that's helped me (re)form my thoughts on PF in the last year.

Section 230 thought from 5 rounds at sections (idk if this will be helpful): Unlike most of the judging pool I'm not a lawyer (so am more susceptible to being bamboozled by lies/debate logic about the legal system) - even so, I think that having a good understanding and then explanation of what 230 does (and doesn't!) do would go a LONG way to establishing ground for both sides.

PF/LD thoughts:

1. Your speed is probably fine, your clarity probably needs work, you should def slow down for anything you want on my ballot at the end of the round and an argument made in your first speech needs to be extended in your other speeches to weigh at the end of the round. PF PEOPLE - I used to have a section about how y'all read your tags/cards backwards but I think I figured you out - I still would prefer if you made my life easier and didn't read everything at one speed, but increasingly that feels like a battle I will not win.

2. I def don't know any of your topic specific jargon and I almost certainly don't know any of the conventions/norms/customs of your event. That means - you probably want to explain an acronym if it'll be important and you'll want to have clear explanations and impacts to your "speed bad" theory or whatever event specific theory (disclosure theory I guess?) you read.

3. Prep time abuse is bad. If it becomes an issue in round I will insert myself and start keeping the prep time myself. When you are out of time you have about 5 seconds to start talking before I get annoyed at you wasting time or stealing prep. Also - I've noticed a huge increase in rebuttals that go 4:10 or summaries that go 3:08. I will put my pen down at the end of the allowed speaking time, you're welcome to keep talking but none of it is going on the flow. I know it seems marginal (and that you don't have enough time as is), but those extensions net you 3-5% extra speech time and someone (probably the judge!) needs to hold the line.

4. I assume that when you read evidence you are reading directly from the source. If you are paraphrasing (apparently allowed in PF) you need to make it clear you are doing so (but also just don't do that). Failure to provide the evidence you paraphrased to the other team in a reasonable amount of time when asked is grounds for a loss. If you set up ev sharing, you should 100% send all cards before you start speaking. This will save time and make everyone's life easier, please just do it this way.

5. I think teams have been most frustrated with my decision when they're read more cards/arguments but didn't spend much time in the last rebuttals/final focus explaining the role of my ballot and weighing. Condensing, weighing and explanation will get you a lot of wins in front of me. Smart cross applications and analytics will also get you a long way in front of me. Additionally, specificity of uniqueness/link and impact scenario will go a long way in front of me, and teams that read a specific scenario have beaten teams reading generic turns quite frequently.

Thoughts on things in debates (not sure how many of these are in LD, pretty sure very few are in PF):

Ks: I'm not a bright or well read individual. I understand the basics of what I believe y'all refer to now as "soft left" Ks, but my lack of substantial liberal arts education means I'm not familiar with anything more critical than them. I will do my best to judge you though, however on kritiks as with any other arguments I need to hear a clear, specific link, a reason the kritik is competitive and solvency. You can try to convince me some or none of these are needed, but it'll be an uphill battle for you. LD people - I think (think) this means that if you read a consequentialist framework I'll track you, if you go for something ontological I'm going to need some extra hand holding (rephrasing your authors will go a LONG way). If this sentence makes no sense, you see what I'm trying to say re: me being not the smartest :)

CPs: Usually fine. I think I prefer that they're not topical, but can be persuaded otherwise. Need to be competitive. Perms aren't an advocacy but I also find the perm does a good job of proving non-competitiveness most of the time.

Theory: Theory with a voter of dropping a team: really high bar, need to prove in round abuse. Theory to drop an arg: Somewhat lower bar, would still like in round abuse. As I get older I find reasonableness to be a better standard for judging theory. Your theory probably needs an interpretation, a violation, an impact and a voter. I've come to understand there's a subset of theory in PF called "tricks" - if your trick doesn't meet this burden I probably don't care for it. In PF, if you want to read "Topicality", I think the most reasonable voter is to drop any argument that isn't topical. You still need to run an interpretation, have a violation and explain what the impacts of non-topicality are. I can be persuaded you should win on T if your opponent reads non-topical advantages, but the burden is high on you to win the impact/voter level.

DAs: Obviously these are fine, need a clear uniqueness and link story. The more complicated your link chain the higher your explanatory burden will be and the lower my bar to evaluating defense for the other team will be.

Short Paradigm [Congress] :

1. Debating makes up ~80% of your rank in front of me, speaking is ~20%. Argument quality is an important sub-element of debating (note - creative link chains are acceptable, you just need to explain them well). I am a human though, so masterful rhetorical skill can get you a good rank if you have it.

2. POs - I am PO friendly in that every PO starts somewhere in the top half of my ballot (new policy for 22/23 season). I track P/R for speeches/questions. If you make no P/R mistakes (or correct yourself quickly if you do), call speakers/questioners about as fast as I can track, have a handle on the rules for motions/votes and keep the round running smoothly, you'll probably do well. You can find detailed examples of how to move up/down as the PO in my extended paradigm linked below.I think the PO leniency has bent too far in favor of POs, so mistakes in P/R will start to carry harsher penalties in Varsity/Open rounds.

3. If there is a broken cycle (i.e. no one stands for aff so there are two negs in a row or vice versa) - giving that broken cycle speech is almost always a surefire way to move to the bottom of my ballot. You need to bring new refutation to the table and it needs to be a clincher for the round. You're almost always better off moving previous question and taking your P/R to the next bill - this continues to be an issue with little movement in the right direction...maybe 24-25 season we give this some more thought?

4. I am probably one of the more friendly judges for you if you like to run critical theory arguments. I can't say this will ever be a good strat for you because I'm never your only judge, but if shooters gotta shoot - let it be you.

5. Please remember to have fun. If you aren't having fun there's really no point to any of this.

Assorted Musing/Long Paradigm:

For the 22/23 Congress season, some observations:

I think the bias in the aff/neg split has firmly entrenched itself on the neg - this is probably due to a) poor bill quality in MN and b) assuming an authorship means prepping a 1N is more "guaranteed". That said, I think going aff can be very advantageous this year, especially given the quality of neg args that folks seem to be running against legislation that is, big picture, a *good* idea.

At locals: The trend of putting every bill authored by someone in the chamber on the agenda needs to stop. The legislation people are putting out in MN is NOT good enough for authorship to guarantee the floor, and because y'all refuse to move on at an appropriate time these bills kill speech ranks for ~2-3 cycles of debaters. I promise you you will not lose ranks in front of me for being "mean" and voting against dockets that have bad bills on them just because someone wrote that bill - in fact if I observe you lobbying against poorly researched and/or "shallow cycle" bills in the face of opposition from folks "just trying to be nice" I'll probably be more inclined to use that as a tiebreaker to move you up in rank for recognizing that debate takes precedence.

PO bias seems to have bent back in favor of POs - in order to compensate I will have a much stricter tolerance for PO mistakes on precedence/recency for both questioners and speakers. Additionally I will start to judge PO speed on a stricter scale when it comes to selecting questioners in particular (obviously accounting for debaters that may take too long to stand or stand mid questioning).

Also for POs - please cut down on the words you say. We don't need to know how long the speech was. We know and TRUST YOU to know how many questioning blocks are next. We only need to know if aff or neg is next speaker, not which number it is. If you really need to thank everyone, please do it off the clock after the round.

I used to have a whole lot of words here about the way I think about and judge debate. I probably won't update it a lot but I probably won't change it a lot either. I've moved that to a google doc which you can view here. Everything is still up to date and accurate as of December 2021.

Extemp Speaking Paradigm, updated pre MN State Tournament 2023:

How to win the ballot, Extemp Speaking:

1. Answer the question.

1. Actually answer the question that was asked, not a variant or similar question. At state this is going to pick trickier than usual (probably), because the questions tend to be multifaceted.

2. Usually, the easiest way to make sure you answer the question is to have a thesis, instead of just a yes/no. You are usually then forced to make sure your subpoints of analysis always link back to the thesis, which in turn answers the question.

3. Whether or not you use a thesis, you want to spend time explaining why your subpoints reinforce or prove your thesis correct, and if you do have a thesis you need to explain why it is the best answer to the question

2. Analysis

1. Depth > breadth - that is, I’d rather see you really focus on proving the logic behind a single claim per sub point rather than having a ton of different points of analysis or facts crammed into two minutes.

1. For example, if your first subpoint is that the ECB raising rates would but European banks under pressure, my preference is for you to explain a theory for why and develop out a clear picture of how and why banks would be in trouble in a rising rate environment (using maybe 1 or 2 sources), rather than telling me that 4 different sources show that 4 different European banks said they’d have trouble with an asset-liability mismatch if the ECB raises rates.

2. Another way of saying this is - I want you to demonstrate that you have an advanced understanding of what you’re talking about, rather than that you were able to read a bunch of headlines. Whatever you can do to give me that impression, do that.

2. Source quality - this is one area of “flash” that I can be impressed - deploying underutilized sources (and explaining why they are great sources) is something I personally really like.

1. Even if you don’t have any books or papers or super underutilized sources to run out, using higher quality sources of common usage (i.e. think tanks and analysis pieces) instead of common news sources (i.e. the NYT, Reuters, etc) is usually good.

3. Delivery - I am pretty firmly in camp analysis > delivery, but am probably an outlier on any panel in this regard. If its the State final you’re all going to be delivering at a level that clears my threshold, so really the key is to not get mentally down on yourself if you stumble or aren’t as smooth as you’d like early on because I don’t care about that at all.

4. Probably the best way to think about winning a round is to treat answering the question like you’re engaging in a debate vs an imaginary opponent who is trying to disprove your answer to the question. This will force you to:

1. Defend the veracity of your claims, which in turn will make them more persuasive

2. Will likely lead you to conditioning your claims with “even-if” statements, which again will increase their persuasiveness

3. Probably means you’re presenting a more nuanced picture of the world, which is good.

I was a 4 year PF debater at Apple Valley High School. I was a semi-circuit debater and have judged LD for 2 years now. I have watched a handful of LD circuit debates, but it doesn't mean I understand everything. Feel free to run semi-circuity arguments. You can spread but if I don't understand you I'll say slow, if I still don't understand you I'll say it again, and if I still don't understand then I will stop flowing. Have fun and don't be mean.

Samuel Hoska’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself: I have been involved with forensics for 15 years as a student, judge and coach. I am currently a coach at Edina High School, teaching Lincoln Douglas Debate. My background was originally in debate and speech where I competed and coached. I have been judging debate for the last 4 years, in all categories. I am currently a student at Minneapolis Community College for a Business Bachelors. I have a half a year remaining and then I will be working on a Bachelors in Communication and a Teaching certificate. I typically judge LD but I am capable of judging any category.

General: I enjoy a coherent arguments made with properly argued evidence. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument. I try to bring the spirit of Tabula Rasa to every round I Judge.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: I was a LD and PF debater in high-school. I appreciate all critical arguments when they are understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable. I pay attention when a debater uses Voters, I always want to know what each side thinks was the most important points in a round.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Last Updated: 11/30/2018

Please send cases to weronika.janczuk@gmail.com, unless drop-share is available; will flow against cases as/when/if they are provided.

________

Greetings!

I debated LD for three years (2006-2009) then PF for one (2009-2010) at Eagan High School (EHS) in MN, of ISD196, semi-involved on the national circuit. I also competed in Speech (great speeches, extemporaneous speaking), and was a nationals' qualifier in Student Congress. I then studied the philosophy of the human person at New York University (NYU) from 2010 to December 2013, graduating a semester early, and am generally fluent in most philosophical categories—able/eager to keep up, where due, always delighted to hear something new.

I've been judging on and off since the fall of 2019, primarily LD:

+ Post-impositionByOfResolutionDebates, it's the debaters' role to set the terms of the debate, and I will hold both the affirmative and the negative to the challenge of their respective positions, including framework establishment and maintenance.

The more niche and nuanced a debater's engagement with the resolution, into structure, the better (usually).

+ Sign-post clearly.

+ All wins depend on my comprehension, so I need to comprehend your speech, your argument, your sign-posting, your cross-examination, and otherwise; I will not flow warrants, impacts, or cards that I cannot understand, but will always—unless contracted out—ask to read the case itself, as one who is a visual learner.

+ I can do semi- to great-speed, so long as speed is clear. You'll want to go at 75-90% circuit maximum for me to keep up. I'll ask for "slower" once, where need be, then flow what I can understand.

+ Be super explicit about differentiation in values, criterions, warrants, impacts, and links to value-criterion standards. I prefer debates deeply substantiated and theoretically clear—there being a clear link between the framework proposed (and I am open to alternative frameworks) and the argument extended. A huge domain to this capacity in the debater's life is supremely clean coaching in cognitive scaffolding and cognitive forms and frameworks, and I listen for your own inner-outer cognitive modulary habit in determining clarity.

+ Do intense work to avoid dropped arguments.

+ Solvency arguments only go so far. I think that there are few resolutions that are either so [(a) generally] or [(b) deeply and intricately] crafted that they demand that the scaffold of the debate shift into a sub-theoretical-practical domain regarding the potential of a position to solve for a problematic status quo designed from within the structure of the resolution itself.

+ Topicality arguments are fine, so long as there is a super clear and boundaries-explicit analysis of what the structure and burden of the resolution requires, intimately tied to a framework already existing on the page—I hate topicality arguments that are thrown in for good measure, just because they respond to some content on the page. Most topicality arguments I find unsubstantiated.

+ Win frameworks. I prefer a meta-level to detail debate in terms of priority—I prefer to have a clear evaluation matrix, with regards to scope and type of impact, and then the warrant-impact debate. It's hard to weigh arguments systematically and without some degree of judge preference and arbitrariness when there isn't a clear framework within which to grasp warrant-impact work.

As a brief observation herein, in terms of case innovations, a framework can be as simple as a small table-esque matrix per each case contention developed in conjunction with meta-cognitive case frameworks, to establish a modulary authority over the content read and subsumed, then manifested in concrete case engagement.

+ Speech points typically range 23-30. I look for clarity and substantive engagement with the flow as primary categories here; 28-30 is going to be supremely exceptional in terms of clarity and capacity to engage the content, with 23-27 being median/average/typical ratings, pending the dimensions of the round, including interpersonal relativities during CX, meta-cognition over responses, and otherwise.

A huge dimension of what affects speaker points, also, is the radically important differentiation between a debater who actually knows what they're talking about, manifesting evidence of mass complex research completed, understood, parsed, and engaged, versus someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about. (Debate taught me more high theory and research scaffolds than any other activity or course, university included, so I urge you to use your time well.)

As a quick side note: Time has evolved me into a massively metaphysically- and praxis-based thinker, so this mind and heart will be always glad to hear the highest form of a structural philosophy that engages and manifests real things, alongside evidentiary bases of a mature, impactful, and compelling kind.

If you really want to win a brownie point, check out Karol Wojtyla's The Acting Person and Edith Stein's On The Problem of Empathy (as an extension academic to Edmund Husserl's work in developing phenomenology as an academic sub-discipline), then cite a good lesson learned on the nature of empathy, conscience, consciousness, or the ontological tendency toward the divine. 

All questions—happy to answer. Email as need be.

P.S.: Resolved: It is better to be a mystic than to not be one. #JSTOR.BFFs.

P.S.: Resolved: The time spent in prayer is better spent than time spent in life modulary.

Both self-evident to me, and thus I partake in debates different in my free time. Always happy to debate and dine.

Weronika (/Vɛ.rɔˈɲi.ka/) (Veronica) Janczuk*

*This name is of Polish language [of the nation-state Poland, in Eastern Europe] origin, and thus the Polish form for the name Veronica.

_________

Last updated 07.24.2022. 5.05pm EDT.

I can't understand spreading. I will only use speech docs to evaluate in-round claims regarding evidence ethics, never to catch up on flowing. I am fine with the speed of top-level circuit PF rounds.

I do not know how to evaluate Kritiks and theory, so I will not. I will follow everything outlined here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

My desire is to intervene as little as possible, so I need you to communicate as much as you can to me. I am some combination of truth and tech - tech in the sense I will give consistently extended arguments more weight and consider all entered arguments, and truth in the sense that I will give sensible arguments more weight and discard illogical arguments.

**District Quals-specific: No feedback, no disclosure. Thank you.**

If time permits and both debaters want disclosure, I will probably need a few minutes to prepare my RFD. In that case, do not discuss the round until I disclose. I will take as long as I need, so don't ask for disclosure if you're not willing to wait. Afterwards, y'all can ask me absolutely anything you want to further your own education and growth as debaters.

If time permits and either debater does not want disclosure, anyone can ask me for feedback, either of a general sort or with specific questions intended to learn, not to influence my decision. I will answer such questions immediately to the best of my ability.

Framework matters and you have to link to one in order for me to care about your impacts

Stock is cool

Ks are fun, explain them well.

Also do run whatever but I have a high burden for theory.

Clearly explain dense phil so I understand. If I don’t understand it I won’t vote on it.

Link, extend, do the things that make you a good debater even if you are circuit-y.

Talk as fast as you want, I will say slow or clear if needed.

Sit or stand, I do not care

30 speaks if you do a back flip, 29 for front flip

+0.5 or 1 if you bring me food

Start at a 28 and move up or down based on how you speak and your strategy.

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how your treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

LD debater for 4 years and coach since 2012. I am fine with most debaters' speed and I will say clear until I can understand you. I am fine with policy style/structured arguments (Plans, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, Theory, etc). While I have written, ran and coached kids in basic K debate, its been 6+ years since fully immersing myself in the literature. Because of that, you may should do a little extra when explaining the implications of arguments (same goes for other forms of dense philosophy).

In most varsity rounds I think prep time is better spent strategizing/layering than generating arguments. Show me you understand how to prioritize, layer and the way arguments interact, not that you can ten-point everything on the flow.

For all arguments, it seriously irks me when people run positions in a way that excludes their opponent from understanding them as a tactic to win. That will tank speaks.

I really enjoy the use of weighing metrics and if you give me analysis as to why your metric is better than your opponents metric (e.g. probability vs. magnitude, etc.), it will raise your speaks.

TL;DR: I judge based off the flow. I will evaluate any properly extended claim that has an warrant and an impact/implication.

Speed: I'm not inherently opposed to spreading quickly but am pretty slow at flowing; so if you're gonna go at 300+ wpm, it's in your best interest to put me on an email chain so I don't miss your args: if I don't flow it, it didn't happen.

Ks: I will vote on Ks but have a higher than average threshold for buying them. I'm not familiar with the K lit at all, so if you're just throwing down author names expecting me to know how your K works, I'm gonna have no idea what's going on, and you're gonna have a bad time.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations on theory. No default stance on drop the arg vs drop the debater; debate about it.

Presumption: I default to presuming Aff in the absence of presumption args.

Segues to a 30 (meet over 9000 of these criteria, and you'll get a 30 guaranteed):

-taking a long sip of water before answering each cross ex question

-asking "can you repeat the question" at least three times in CX

-calling every dropped arg a "Game over issue"

-going the entire round without sitting or standing

-using the phrase "you've activated my trap card" in context

-if the number of times you say "Hitler" exceeds the number of breaths you take during the round

-answering all cross ex questions with Deleuze and Guattari quotes

-giving an accurate 1NR roadmap that's not "NC,AC"

-indicting your opponent's framework with "Turn! No bright-line"

-using more than one laptop stand simultaneously

-pleading "don't let my opponent do this to you, judge" in a genuinely concerned tone

-starting your voters with "this debate boils down to three main points"

Background: I debated for Highland Park for 4 years, and coached there for three. My undergraduate degree is in communication, with an emphasis in argument theory and persuasion theory. I have a JD, and I am a practicing attorney.

Big thing: I’m hard of hearing. Speed bad. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, you’ll get two ‘clear’s and after that I’ll stop flowing until I can understand you again.

I go off the flow, with one exception (and one other exception detailed below): I assume the knowledge of a first year college student; if someone misstates a fact that I would expect an average college freshman to know, I will account for that in my evaluation of the round. This is because it’s easier to state a falsehood than to disprove it, and it is unfair to give an advantage. Note: there is a difference between factual disagreements and policy disagreements. I don’t bring my opinions to the round.

I see debate as encompassing two different skills. The first is argument. This is the nitty gritty of how arguments and counter arguments interact. The second is persuasion. This gives you an opportunity to do things with the arguments you’ve made to tell me a clear story. Effective debate involves doing both.

My original paradigm was that I’d vote for just about anything that was warranted, explained well, and that I was instructed on how to use it. Well, y’all have taken that to some extremes that I’m not happy with. New paradigm: do not use cutting edge theory arguments as a substitute for solid fundamentals. That said, shall we say avant garde arguments have their place and are important and relevant for debate. I will update this section as people continue to test the limits of what I’ll allow.

[High theory point that won’t apply to 99% of rounds: Debate can encompass the act of arguing in a structured space, as well as using the time given within that space to argue about the conditions outside of that space and to the world in general (eg. role of the ballot). I am an observer of the first, but a participant in the second. As the conversation shifts from debating within the round to debating about the round itself, as a participant in the structure have the ability to interact with those arguments because I myself am indicted. I will only do so to the amount required to resolve the ballot.]

I am currently the assistant Debate Coach at Hopkins High School. I debated on the local Minnesota Circuit for four years, and have been involved in LD debate for the last 6 years.

I evaluate rounds using which ever criterion (standard) is successfully defended and cleanly extended, and I will only weigh impacts that are explicitly linked back this winning criterion. I have a very basic understanding of the structure and purpose of theory, but never ran it myself. The same goes for DAs, Ks, CPs. Therefore, if these arguments are to be run they need to be explained very clearly or I will default to regular contention level impacts. I strongly prefer topical arguments directly related to the resolution.

I am not a huge fan of speed but it is acceptable as long as it is clear. if I cannot understand what is said I will not flow it and I will not vote for it.

Hi,

TLDR: I've done 4 years of LD for Marlborough School and 3 years of PF read anything in front of me at any speed but be kind and slow down for tags

Framework: depending on how progressive your circuit is, make your own choices I'm most comfortable with util, I'll listen to anything but explain it fully if you are going to read it. If you do read framing USE IT, this takes up speech time don't let it disappear in your last few speeches.

General stuff: Slow down for tags, articulate your links, solve for your offense. Fully articulate your arguments and why they matter. Please engage with your opponent there is nothing worse than a debate without clash. Except for a debate where the debaters are rude or cruel.

Ks: I've run them I have a solid understanding of the basics, don't assume I understand your obscure stuff but slow down for tags and articulate links and it'll be fine. You must prove alt solvency. If you don't solve theres no reason to vote for you

Email me any questions and the cases: gnelson1@macalester.edu

Traditional

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

Don't spread. When bringing up cards outside of your intro speech, please restate the taglines for clarity.

Hi y'all! I'm Michelle. I debated in LD for four years for Rosemount High School, so LD is where I feel most comfortable judging.

Overall notes: I won't tolerate racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic/ableist/other discriminatory and offensive conduct in the debate space. I will stop the round if I deem necessary. Just don't do it, okay?

Trigger warnings are important to me. Make sure you use them.

Argumentation: Honestly I don't want to constrain the types of arguments you run, but there are types of argumentation that I am less familiar with, so be cautious running those on me, as I might not evaluate them as a judge with more familiarity would. That being said, here are my opinions about types of arguments (in order of familiarity):

Traditional LD (contentions, observations, value/criterion, etc): I'm pretty confident in my abilities in these genre of argument, but if you're working with a less common or more specific version of a common framework, explanation is key.

CPs/DAs: Provided the link chain is clear, I should be okay with these.

Topicality/T: Here's where it starts to get a little fuzzy. I've run and hit T before, but it's never been a go-to argument for me. However, I will evaluate it if it's been warranted well and lacks argument against it. However, be cautious because I will also give people who are unfamiliar with T the benefit of the doubt if they don't run counter-T in the typical structure because I generally care more about the arguments said than the formatting.

Special note for disclosure theory: You have a low probability of winning this argument if you run it. As someone who rarely debated outside of MN, disclosure was a concept I didn't know much about, so I give the benefit of the doubt to students on local circuits or from smaller/newer debate programs who might not have known about disclosure of cases on the wiki. You can call me biased, but don't say I didn't warn you on this one.

K's/Narratives/all else: These confused me when I debated, so I might not be the best judge for these types of cases. I'll still try and evaluate them, but I can't guarantee that I'll follow the many layers the arguments function on. If you think you can make it clear to me, feel free to run it, but know the risk.

Speaker points: An average for me is a 27.5/30 on speaks.

Here are some ways to gain points: make good arguments, be courteous to your opponent, ask insightful questions (or answer insightfully) in cross, have confidence in speaking, etc.

Here are some ways to lose points: being patronizing to your opponent, making people feel unwanted or unsafe in the round or the debate space as a whole, etc.

Speed: The clearer you are, the faster you can go. Per usual, slow down for tags and card names if you want me to actually follow your argument, especially if you plan on just referring to card names for the remainder of the round. I'll yell "clear" or "speed" twice before I stop flowing.

Other: Anything that didn't fit into the aforementioned categories

I tend to avoid disclosing decisions unless specifically told to disclose by the tournament.

In the end, I trust my flow when evaluating the round. Thus, it is imperative that you are clear and organized no matter what you are running. Even if your opponent doesn't point out an extension through ink or a new in the 2 argument, if that's what my flow shows, I'm not evaluating it.

If I'm on my laptop more after the first few speeches, it's cause I'm filling out the ballot with comments of what I've noticed from the first few speeches or the one you're currently on. I'm trying to avoid making the tournament run late, but I also love leaving thorough critiques. Don't worry, though, I am still keeping up with arguments.

I believe in science. Climate change is real and I doubt I'll be convinced that the opposite is true.

Assistant coach for Apple Valley, fourth year out, debated for four years. I spend most of the season judging local MN tournaments. My favorite types of debates are quality traditional rounds. Clashing, weighing, impacting, extending, and comparing evidence are fantastic ways to get my ballot. If you and your opponent are sending speech docs, include me: corirobertsmn@icloud.com

Notes:

* Number your arguments and signpost. I evaluate the round based heavily on the flow.

* Policy args (plans, CPs, DAs, etc.) are fine. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not great at evaluating intense theory, K, or phil debates. I hate a prioris, skep, tricks, and spikes.

* No, I won't flow off your speech doc. I'll only open it if I have a specific concern about a specific piece of evidence after the round.

* I'm fine with moderate amounts of speed only if you're clear. I'll yell clear twice, then put down my pen if I still can't understand. Usually, I find that my issue with spreading isn't speed but clarity (I'm atrocious at understanding you if you aren't clear or if you mumble).

* Asking me questions after round is totally cool and I encourage it bc it's great for learning, but aggressive post-rounding is not okay. If you have to wonder whether something qualifies as aggressive post-rounding, it probably does.

* Be nice! I will drop you or lower your speaker points if I think you're super rude or mean to your opponent.

* Important for nationally competitive debaters: make sure the round is something with which your opponent can engage. If you're a successful circuit debater and your opponent is a significantly less experienced JVer or novice, but you make the round inaccessible for them by spreading way too fast or running something they can't reasonably be expected to engage with, I will probably lower your speaker points and may even drop you. If you're the better debater, you should be able to win anyways :)

Updated October 2nd, 2021

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

*

*

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

• I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

• Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

• Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

• The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

• It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

• Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

• If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

• You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

• First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

• Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

• Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

• The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

• Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

• Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

• I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

• And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

• Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

• I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

• I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

• I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

• Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

• Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

*

*

Lincoln Douglas:


Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Hello! My name is Richard Shmikler. I graduated St. Louis Park in 2013 and Macalester College in 2017. I debated for 4 years in HS in LD, ending my senior year with 11(?) bids, finalist at TOC and finalist at NSDA Nationals, champion of Victory Briefs, Blake, Dowling, etc. I have been coaching ever since - all levels of LD from local to circuit, and PF primarily in China and a little in the US. My students have won major tournaments in the US and abroad, including NSDA China Nationals, Apple Valley, and Minnesota State.

I think debate is a sandbox game where you can create the round you want with limited control by rules or influence by adults. I will avoid intervening as much as possible. There is no debate style that I think is far superior or inferior, and will do my best to evaluate any arguments made. That being said, generally my order of preferences in terms of the debates I like to judge are...

Framework/Phil > Stock > LARP (policy-esque) > T/Theory > Gamey Creative Stuff (some might call tricks) > Topical K's > Pre-Fiat / Performance

Basically, go for whatever style you do best, and be respectful of everyone. If you are impacting, weighing, crystalizing, and winning on the line-by-line, you will get my ballot with high speaks.

I also save my flows from rounds, so if you have any additional questions, want to do redos, or want to grill me about my decision, you can email me at rshmikler@gmail.com.

PS: I think that 'swag' and 'flow' in debate are awesome and I will reward students who show mastery of their style and arguments - regardless of what that style is - with high speaks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed

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

Stock/Traditional

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

Philosophy

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Theory/T

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks

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

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

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

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

MISC

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

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

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

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

I coached LD, PF and Congress for 8 years at Chanhassen High School in Minnesota.

Reaffirmed 1-21-23

Lincoln Douglas

My entire career has been coaching at a school that does traditional-ish LD. If you want a judge with more experience in/sympathy for national-circuit-style debate, I would put me as a low pref--for no better reason than you might be disappointed with how I evaluate the round. If you are reading this, chances are rounds have already been paired and you are stuck with me. Sorry. I'll do the best I can.

If you only have a few minutes before the round and don't want to spend that time listening to my rambling I'd sum it up as follows:

Research, evidence, truth.

What I value about the activity of debate is the research and argument-creating process. I am aware of the variety of resources from which debaters can draw arguments and evidence, and I am not insensitive to the reasons why many choose to do so. However, I really disfavor debates that center around arguments and cases that I am well-aware you did not write. Stock K's, generic constructives, and canned CPs disappoint me as a coach and as an educator.

What disappoints me even more than running things that you did not research and write is when you run things that you do not understand. It doesn't take talent or care to write a punchy frontline and cut a card from Baudrillard's gibberish. I want to leave the round feeling like we have all come closer to understanding the truth, not running a race to the most obscure and convoluted.

I want to see good evidence. Please cite the author and the publication. Not all sources are equal. I expect your warrant to literally support the conclusion you state as your frontline. Sources aren't important just because somebody said them; credibility and persuasiveness rests upon credentials and, more importantly the author's logic. If you can't explain why author reaches conclusion X, you haven't created a complete warrant. If you are moving from an evidence warrant to an analytic warrant, you need to make that distinction; don't tell me the card supports your conclusion when it only does half the work. This goes for framework too. Your card doesn't say "the role of the ballot is rejecting oppression." The card says oppression is bad. You are saying that, therefore, the role of the ballot is to XYZ.

I will always be skeptical of cards about debate or written by debaters. I don't find forum or blog posts written by coaches, judges, or former debaters to be the kind of credible, disinterested evidence that we should be using in this activity.

Here is a more concrete list of the things that I do and do not want to see.

1. I don't read the wiki, I will not read your case as you run it, and making your case public ahead of the round does not give you license to run something abusive. Please don't run disclosure theory; I won't evaluate it.

2. I prefer quick and articulate over fast. I'm not adept at discerning spreading, and I will more likely let things fall through the cracks than remind you every 15 seconds to slow down or speak clearly. Your call though.

3. I like kritiks and think they are a good expression of what you can do in this activity, but not all kritiks link to the resolution, and I'm not going to go for bad links. This probably means that you'll need to do more work than just pulling up your camp backfiles and reading your stock will-to-power K.

4. I think formalized theory arguments dumb down debate.

5. I don't think plans are actually affirming, but I'd entertain somebody who wanted to change that perspective

6. Counterplans are cool.

7. Do not argue with me after the round. You're debating your opponent, you accept that I'm the expert. I assume that the losing team is going to say that I'm wrong.

8. I don't like performance or narrative. I'd prefer substance debate.

I'm not as grumpy as this paradigm makes me seem, and I am a qualified and experienced judge.

Public Forum
I coach IE as well as debate, and I specialize in Oratory and Extemp Speaking. My ideal PF round would have the content and argumentation of Extemp with the oratory skills of OO. That is my 30. Unfortunately, I know that a lot of teams sacrifice oratory skills to get in more information, and that is fine with me. Speak fast, but don’t get into LD/Policy territory.

I’m all about weighing. Rarely can a team eliminate all offense from their opponents, so this requires some sort of weighing metric. Magnitude = Probability x Scope. That how I teach my kids, but you can weigh however you’d like, just make sure you do it.

Things I hate in PF: 1) Supercharged impacts. I know that thermonuclear holocaust is a bigger impact than a loss in GDP, but that doesn’t mean that you can find a link from Public Subsidies to nuclear war. If it is a stretch, I will do my best to find a way to vote against it. 2) Complicated framework. Cost/Benefit is the default framework for PF. If you want to argue deontology, you are in the wrong event. That being said, I understand that different resolutions require certain limits on the debate. Be fair and don’t try to rule out arguments rather than debate them. 3) Assuming the judge will intervene. I’ve seen this run rampant in my local circuit—teams trying to refute their opponents by reading a card and then moving onto the next argument. I need you to tell me what to do with your arguments. I will do everything I can to stay completely out of the debate. If you need me to do your work for you, we’ll have a rough round.
Besides that, I am a straight-forward PF judge. Debate the issues in the resolution, don’t try any semantic hocus pocus.

I am the head of LD debate at Maple Grove HS. I have been coaching for 7 years and competed in LD at Robbinsdale Armstrong High School.

Engage with the topic, impact to a v/c or standard. I don't appreciate offense that doesn't engage with the resolution, such as many theory arguments, but sometimes these sort of arguments are necessary in response to abuse. That being said I'm fine with unique approaches or worldviews as long as they are answering the resolution.

Speed is fine assuming you have the enunciation to go with it. In particular, make sure to say card names clearly.

For PF please do not try to shift your approach to fit an LD paradigm, run what you normally would and I'm probably fine with it.

I very rarely give verbal critiques or disclose.

General Considerations:

Kindness rules!

Listen to your opponent and demonstrate you understand their arguments; then present better arguments than theirs. Show a command of the whole topic.

Don't ask me about my meager paradigm unless you are committed to adjusting your debating to accommodate it. If you ask, I expect you to adjust to it. Failure to do so will lower your speaker points.

I can handle some speed; I very much prefer not to.

Congress:

I expect your arguments to pursue an answer to the legislation's purpose. It's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build things up. If you're affirming, explain how there is solvency in affirming. If you're negating, explain what would be needed to solve; don't just list reasons why the legislation won't work. Solvency is everyone's burden because you're legislators. Move society forward.

Extend arguments. Dueling oratories isn't debate. Respond to the responses of other speakers on the issues.

I actually find it compelling when you represent a particular constituency. Applying your arguments to how they impact actual citizens is the point, after all.

Lincoln/Douglas:

I'll listen to circuit argumentation, but if it isn't clear to me, I won't vote for it. That being said, sticking to the topic is much safer with me.

If you are prepping arguments, your prep time clock needs to be running. Don't stall through any tactics to get more.

If you want to start an email chain, do so before the round begins. Be ready by attaching your files to a reply ahead of time and just send at the appropriate moment.

Time yourself. Call out your prep time. You may time your opponent, but for goodness sake, do NOT set an alarm. That's just obnoxious.

I did LD as a debater and now coach LD for Armstrong High School. I co-founded the Minnesota Debate Institute, where I worked mainly with LD and Congressional debate.

‏‏‎ ‎

You can win in front of me by extending offense (contention-level impacts or turns) that links to the winning criterion and outweighs your opponent's offense. It's not enough to just say "extend;" you should re-explain the warrant of the argument (briefly is fine!) and re-explain the link to the contention (again, briefly is fine!). Weighing is A+. And the criterion does still exist! You're allowed to read a framework other than utilitarianism, and it can make for an interesting, educational debate.

‏‏‎ ‎

Explain arguments well. Please be clear so someone hearing your ideas/authors for the first time can get what you're saying.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

Please do not spread (speed read) or read national circuit / policy case styles (Ks, CPs, theory, etc.). Spreading and nat circuit-style arguments tend to make LD debate more exclusionary, racist, and classist. If your opponent runs these things, still do your best to respond to their argument's warrants and tell me it's exclusionary, and then I'll probably vote for you.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

The issue with national circuit and policy case styles tends to be, IMO, form/structure, not content. So if you have a good critical or policy-oriented argument you want to run, cool: Put it in an accessible case format and let's go.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

I care about evidence quality. Johnson '98? Lastname '20? A brief garble of syllables and a two digit number are not a citation. :) Even at tournaments that don't require full source citations, I'd love to hear them (author, author qualification, publication/source, year). Folks run skeeeetchy cards... call them on it!! Evidence matters.

I evaluate arguments only if I can distinguish what words you are saying. When I listen to a set of syllables, can I hear a word? If I cannot hear a word, then I cannot flow or consider the argument. I will not read a case doc while folks imitate spreading; I'd like to hear the arguments. The trend of case docs and spreading worsens the neg side bias and, more importantly, makes debate an even more exclusionary activity to folks without access to the immense financial and social resources required to engage effectively in such practices. (Update: I didn't think spreading could get worse, but I'm now seeing it! This trend of people "reading" at Mach 12 -- faster than before, faster than fast, making sounds that barely approximate spoken words -- while their opponent and judge just skim along with a case doc ... that trend is objectively terrible. Objectivity doesn't even exist, but this trend is still objectively terrible. I wish the adults in this activity would do better to guide the young people on their teams towards good debate.)

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

Argument content: I am open to hearing critical race theory, feminist philosophy, deep ecology, anti-capitalism, or whatever ideas you want to run. Debate is about exploring ideas, so run what's important and interesting to you. If it's a serious argument, I will not vote you down just because you read something outside the Overton Window of whiteness, patriarchy and U.S. empire.

‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

That said, please do think critically and carefully about how your social position relates to the arguments you're running and to your opponent's social position. For example, suppose you're a white debater reading a ("pre-fiat") position with many cards from Black women writers, a position that asks the judge to vote for your performance in the round or something. Particularly if your opponent is a Black woman, is it ethical for you to run that position? Maybe not.

‏‏‎ ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎

Btw, we should never run arguments that are harmful. Right? If someone is racist in round, for example, I'll vote against them. Please don't blame people for circumstances they're trapped in due to oppression. Please don't deny the tragic reality — and deep weight — of racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, settler colonialism, ableism, colorism, and other forms of domination, marginalization, and violence.

‏‏‎ ‎

Debate should be fun, yes, but we're also talking about serious stuff — many of us from perspectives of privilege. Let's be respectful of the people we're debating and the people we're debating about, and we should be cool. Good luck in the round; I look forward to judging you! :)

Conflicts: Minnetonka

Background:

Did mainly LD and some policy in college.

Update 11/27/20

Nat circuit debaters should try to make the round as accessible as possible for local circuit debaters. I will intervene on behalf of the local circuit debater.

Overview of Debate:

Debate is a competitive educational activity to me. I think you should be well prepared and polished in your augments regardless of the format or type of circuit you participate in. At the end of the round I expect debaters to have made a strategic and well articulated argument to win my ballot.

Better to ask questions before round.

Specifics:

K - These are good if done correctly. I do tend to vote often for ID politics

Plans/DA/CP - Good

Philo that isn't tricks - Good, I will probably understand at an intro/intermediate level

Tricks - part of the game but I don't really enjoy these and haven't voted off of them in awhile

Theory - Actual abuse will be most persuasive to me otherwise I'll probably buy the reasonability arguments

T - Probably should defend the topic but I'm not super set on it.

Quick notes:

Debate is a game.

Evidence quality matters.

I prefer if you run arguments that make sense.

I generally do not enjoy voting for tricks and have not in most rounds.

Other than that do w/e you feel.