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.

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.)

Harvard edit: I'd love to hear some more anti-cap. But come on folks, let's call it what it is. It's not 'lower class', it's not 'economically disadvantaged'. It's the proletariat.

Harvard update: I haven't judged in a few months. This is my first tournament on this topic. Don't assume I know anything about the topic, cuz I don't (other than whatever I know from every court clog DA that everyone has read on every single topic ever).

Dotan Appelbaum. He/Him/His.

I'm a freshman at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. I graduated from Saint Louis Park High School in Minnesota. I debated LD for 4 years, 3 on varsity. I competed at mostly Midwest national circuit tournaments, with a few others thrown in (Bronx, Yale). I competed in the Valley Round Robin last year.

I mostly debated on the flow—framework, contention, all that fun stuff. But I did debate K's, theory, policy, etc. plenty, often with aspects of those styles as parts of my cases. I generally understand jargon and buzz words. However, if you are using very esoteric language/buzzwords, make sure you explain them.

I have some experience judging, though it was novices whom I judged. I am a tab judge, so if you're in a rush to get to the round, you should hurry up and stop reading.

TL;DR I'm a tab judge. Read anything. Please, make the round clear—take control of what's going on and write the ballot for me. Also, the one thing I won't vote on is disclosure theory. If you're gonna read it, you'll have to do a spectacular job of why the lack of disclosure in that round specifically disadvantaged you to the extent that you can't win, and to the extent that it outweighs the harms to small schools. Also, I love K's but please don't have an oppression Olympics debate. Those arguments run counter to the literature. Solidarity is key.

General:

-Claim, warrant, impact are all musts.

-extend the claim, warrant, impact. If you drop one, I won't be able to consider the argument.

-Make sure you signpost well. Otherwise, the debate gets super muddled.

-If you think I'm making non-verbals, I'm probably not. Don't let it affect you.

-If you are blatantly offensive/problematic, I will end the round.

-Good (and true) voting issues are the best way to win. Write my ballot for me.

-If I say that I default to something in the rest of this paradigm, it does not mean you have to win me over. If there is a shitty justification for the opposite, and your opponent doesn't respond, I won't default.

-I don't presume aff or neg unless arguments are made. I doubt a round would come down to presumption. I've only seen it once on a split ballot. But, if I have to presume, and no arguments were made, there will be a coin toss.

-Please enjoy! I don't want to make rounds scary. Let's have fun with debate!

Speaking:

-I'm pretty good with speed. Don't go top speed right away.

-Enunciate

-I will yell clear. If you see that I am not flowing, it's because I can't. Slow down.

-Don't ask me how to get a 30 because I have nothing profound to say. You know how to get good speaker points.

Framework:

-If your framework doesn't have real justifications, lord help you.

-Values are derived from the topic. Unless you can derive 'human decency' from the wording of the resolution, steer clear.

-If you engage in value debate, I will cry. (exceptions: see bullet point above)

Theory:

-There are two areas in which I put my foot down/do not evaluate arguments—bigotry, and disclosure theory. 1) It is very difficult to verify in round. 2) Disclosure hurts small school debaters—significantly. It makes debate more exclusive than it already is. 3) It makes debate way less interesting. Show your argumentative skills—not your prep skills. If you really want to risk it and read disclosure theory, you need to have a damn good reason to convince me that your opponents choice not to disclose their case disadvantaged you to the point that I should decide the round based on that.

-Other than that, I'm open to theory. Though, if it's out of round abuse, it will be very hard for me to be able to verify the violation occured.

-I really don't want a debate to end on a shitty spike numbered 6 on an 11 point underview.

-I default to reasonability and drop the argument. However, I don't even like to default to drop the argument, because after you tell me what rule they violated, you need to tell me what consequence is fitting.

K's:

-These are kool. Especially when they are grounded in the real world and deal with real issues of identity.

-You gotta have all the parts, including a role of the ballot.

-If your role of the ballot functions like a standard for evaluating the round, I will decide the round accordingly. This means that a ROTB does not necessarily up-layer a framework debate. Tell me why I should judge the round based on the ROTB. That means that if you read a framework, and your opponent reads a ROTB, prove to me that the framework is a better mechanism for judging the round.

-If your role of the ballot functions as an indictment of something your opponent did (i.e. language used, problematic words or arguments), you need to tell me what I should do about it, and justify it.

-If you're reading high theory or other super esoteric critical stuff, slow down and explain what the giant salad of words you just threw at me meant.

-Ok let's talk about K debate and what it is. A K is a critique (obviously). K's can be a critique of the resolution, of the affirmative's approach, of a debater's actions/language, etc. However, K debate has become almost entirely strategic. Debaters are invoking discussions of oppression for the sake of winning a round, expecting that simply saying certain words (like role of the judge, root cause, etc) will uplayer anything else said in the round. There are a couple problems with this. First, if you are ingenuine about your K, it's really easy to tell and the round gets much much worse. Second, in the real world these discussions of oppression are coming out of leftist movements and analysis. Do you think leftist movements argue that anticapitalism is more important than fighting antiblackness? NO! Please don't run an oppression olympics round. Any argument that a certain oppression is a root cause or is more important than any other axiom of oppression is itself oppressive, reductionist, and wrong. Wilderson is an anticapitalists. Anticapitalists fight antiblackness. These forms of oppression are linked. I'm not gonna drop you for making these arguments, but I can assure you that any debate centered on these arguments is going to be muddled, wrong on both sides, and generally bad praxis. It may as well come down to a coin flip.

Policy:

-Sure, go for it.

Misc:

-Make the round clear. Explain to me what the highest level of the debate is, and why you're definitively winning on it.

-As of the end of the Bronx tournament, my judging is 50-50 +1 to one side since I have so far judged an odd # of rounds.

Extemp:

I competed in extemp for three years at Edina HS. My career highlights were reaching NCFL and NSDA National finals. Since then, I have coached MBA RR invites, NSDA, ETOC, UKTOC, and NCFL national finalists at Shrewsbury HS (MA) and Edina HS (MN), where I currently coach. I have also privately coached students in South Florida and South Texas and have some familiarity with those circuits.

I am what you might call a content judge. But I do care about time and time allocation (it’s not a fair competition if you get 8 minutes while your opponents get only 7; tough to make a good argument in only 30 seconds, etc.).

This is how I will rank you and your opponents, items rank-ordered:

1. Did you answer the question? If you answered the question, I evaluate you against others who answered the question. If not, vice versa. This is the most important point for me as a judge. He or she who provides the best answer to his or her selected question will win the round. If you do not answer the question — giving a “how should” answer to a “will” question, for example – expect to earn a bad rank. I've watched NSDA and TOC finalists fail to answer the question and I did not hesitate to give them the 5.

2. Did you emphasize the arguments? Did your claims have warrants? Did you terminalize your impacts back to the question? Importantly, were there contradictions within your substructure or between your points (even if these weren’t expressely articulated, the logical conclusion of one point may contradict that of another point)?

3. With what sources did you corroborate your arguments? Were your sources recent? High quality? Did you consider the key experts in the field?

4. How were the performative elements (delivery)? Did you exude confidence and use your voice and body to command the space? Did you offer a relevant AGD? Were you monotone or did you provide vocal variety? Did you have on-tops? Did they meaningfully contribute to the speech?

I care least about delivery because evaluations of delivery are necessarily subjective. Just as people react differently to jokes, judges will find performative elements (humor/emotions) differently entertaining/funny/sad/etc. In my mind, a content focus is the only consistently fair judging paradigm for extemp.

When deciding between two or more high quality extemp speakers, I find that four things set speakers apart (not rank-ordered, all items matter to me):

1. Difficulty of question. If two speakers provide equally good speeches but one speaker answers a much more difficult question (triads, obscure policies/issues, etc.) that speaker may earn a better rank (same logic as opp. averages as a tie breaker).

2. Quality of sources. Did you cite think tanks, esteemed professors/thinkers, journals, BOOKS?

3. Framing the question. Did you give me key background on the actors/terms in the question and tell me the gravity/importance of the question? Did you explain to me what an answer means in terms of the wording of the question (what it means for a policy to be “successful” or “effective” etc.)?

4. Delivery/wit.

Debate:

Add me to the email chain: tannerhawthornej @ gmail.com. I coach Edina HS PF and extemp speaking.

I debated LD and PF for Edina High School for three years. I’m now a junior at Dartmouth, I'm on the policy team. I personally know Raam Tambe.

I can flow fast and will evaluate all arguments. The winner of my ballot will be the better debater(s), not the the debater(s) that run args I like. As such, I won't draw arbitrary lines at certain types of arguments. Speaks will suffer if a debater is rude/offensive. If you have more questions feel free to ask before the round.

For PF, I will not evaluate offense that’s dropped in summary. If you go for something in final focus it needs to be in summary (except d). PF is more about persuasion than the other debate events, I’ll keep that in mind. Weigh or you’re asking for intervention. Don’t really care about speed for PF but I haven’t seen speed give much of a competitive advantage on PF. Evidence ethics is the biggest problem I’ve encountered in PF. I will call for cards so be ready to have good evidence ethics. I will give incredibly low credence to bad ev ethics. Analytic responses are fine, misconstruing evidence is lying.

For LD, I’m good at flowing the T/CP/DA/stock FW debate but often don’t know the K lit. This doesn’t mean I’ll drop Ks, I just need a clear articulation. It probably needs to be slower than you're used to. I won't flow what I can't understand. Slow down for theory. You’re calling out in round abuse not reading a card so I need to understand what you’re saying. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory.

For Policy, my experience is one term competing in college on the NDT/CEDA circuit.

Danial Zane Davis:

Title & Experience:

Professional Development Specialist, Ewald Consulting, Saint Paul, MN.

Former Assistant Director of Speech & Debate & 7th Grade Logic & Language Arts Teacher, St. Croix Preparatory Academy (PREP), Stillwater, MN.

More than a decade coaching and judging Lincoln-Douglas and Policy (CX) at MN Speech & Debate Tournaments.

In high school in Nebraska, four years of (mostly Congress) debate alongside four years of forensics, especially extemporaneous and informative.

Background:

I'm an educator who has worked with middle school, high school, and adult learners in charter schools, public schools, and the private sector. My undergraduate education focused on literature, linguistics, philosophy, and history, while my Master's work is in education and natural and environmental sciences. Arguments that apply philosophy vaguely or incorrectly, arguments that abuse linguistics to make distinctions without meaningful differences, and arguments based on poorly understood or absent literary, historical, and/or scientific evidence will fall under the lightest scrutiny by your opponent. On the other hand, arguments that demonstrate sound philosophy, employ language meaningfully, and feature accurate or insightful references to literature, history, and/or scientific evidence will help you.

Style and rules:

I will say “clear” if a debater is incomprehensible. If I say "clear" twice, and the debater does not attempt to slow down or enunciate, I will stop flowing the speech. This automatically results in that debater losing the round. I can handle a reasonably fast debate comfortably, but I prefer L-D to be conducted at a conversational pace.

I prefer debates to be amicable intellectual competitions, so I don’t generally appreciate abusive behavior in rounds. However, I don’t mind emotional intensity, provided it subsides when the round concludes. I also welcome reasonable humor where appropriate.

I expect debaters to engage with their opponent’s arguments (read: clash), not merely to read blocks at each other. Thus, I do not appreciate attempts to win by "spreading" as many arguments as possible, hoping to overwhelm one's opponent with quantity instead of quality. This is a habit of poor CX debaters that occasionally rears its ugly head in L-D.

I am a flow judge, and I want to hear actual arguments, not buzzwords or empty tags. Don’t just say “extend my __ card.” Remind me what the card states. Don’t expect that I will fill-in the blank. Making and clarifying arguments is your job, not mine.

LD Judging Paradigm:

In short, I will hear any reasonable argument if you understand what you are reading and run it well across the flow. Make sure you read my "Background" paragraph if you want clarification on what "understand what you are reading" and "run it well" means.

Your value-premise is important. If you and your opponent have different, competing values, don’t automatically declare your values equal or identical and move-on. To weigh two competing value premises, I usually make a comparison between the achievement of similar positions.

The value-criterion is the vital weighing mechanism that allows me to see whether or not your contention-level arguments achieve your value-premise. With this in mind, I don’t like the trend of just running a "Standard" (that has infiltrated L-D from CX). While reasonable in theory, the practice usually leads debaters to have a value-premise without a concrete weighing mechanism--making it difficult to judge whether they achieves their own burden--or a weighing mechanism with no end goal--making even successful arguments lack a higher purpose, which seems contrary to the intellectual, philosophical, or moral duty implied by “ought” or “should” in an L-D resolution.

When determining the winner of a round, I will first judge if each debater has successfully addressed all of their opponent’s key arguments. This is not to say that I will vote against you if you drop an ancillary point in the 2AR. However, if you are deliberately dropping a significant argument, you should clearly explain why you are doing so, and you should ground your reasoning in sound evidence, philosophy, or theory. Further, if you want me to know that an argument is essential, you should highlight it via specific voting issues in the 2NR/AR.

If all arguments relevant to the round have been adequately addressed (or equally inadequately addressed), I will next examine whether each debater has successfully met their own burden. If you connect your framework with your contention-level arguments through explicit warrants and continue to make these connections clear across the flow, you are likely to win against an opponent who does not. If both debaters have done this (or both have equally failed), I will compare worlds to make my decision. I am open to debates concerning the role of the ballot, but if such a debate is absent, I will default to the above process.

If you intend to run a Plan or Counterplan, I expect you to explicitly link it to the Resolution and to ground it in a nuanced Value/Criterion Framework. Plans originated in CX, which places far less emphasis on the Value debate. While I am familiar with CX, it is distinct from L-D and for important reasons I don't need to enumerate here. Suffice to say, if you intend to use any CX-style argument in an L-D round, you must adapt it for the unique requirements of L-D.

I love a well-run K, as a good Kritik is rooted in a strong philosophical framework. Please note the qualifiers, “good,” “well-run,” and “strong philosophical framework.” For any additional clarification, see my "Background" paragraph. K’s can be permuted, but I need clear warrants as to why.

If you run T, it should be because something really isn't resolutional. Topicality is another CX argument that needs to be adapted for reasonable use in L-D.

I prefer that debates focus on the Resolution, but I will try to evaluate theory debates fairly. To be clear, however, my understanding of debate theory is basic, especially compared with TOC judges. (I have neither participated in nor coached TOC style L-D.) If the round comes down to a theory debate, it is the burden of the 2NR and the 2AR to make sure the theory arguments and the implications thereof are absolutely clear.

I don’t like to examine evidence after a round, but I have and I will if I think the in-round analysis of the evidence is inconclusive. I reserve the right to read whatever part(s) of the evidence I think are necessary to determine if it is taken out of context or interpreted badly enough to alter its meaning. I will hear challenges to the validity of evidence, but if a debater challenges the methodology of their opponent, they need to have their own methodology available for examination as well. If this is not the case, I will dismiss such a challenge.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy (CX) Paradigm:

Evidence:

Evidence is only one part of a debate. 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 will not vote 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.

Another area I think is important is the "citation debate." I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. 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.

I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. 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. 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).

Speed:

When you are speaking at 300+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which leads to miscommunications later in the extension debate. To resolve this issue, articulate and speak slower in your presentation of signposts, claims, and citations. This shouldn't slow down your overall presentation by much, but it should make those “flow-able” points clearer. Additionally, I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't articulating, and if you continue to speak too fast, I'll just stop flowing. If you see this, you will probably lose the round, so make a conscious effort to accommodate my speed preference for the signposts, tags, and author last names at least. An optimal speed in these areas is around 200-250 wpm.

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). The most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture. Additionally, a big picture debate may be able to shore up some of the back-and-forth that takes place in the line-by-line debate, so if a debater doesn't directly respond to the Contention One, Subpoint A, little three, they can still show offense with a big picture/overview analysis of the entire subpoint or contention. However, as previously mentioned, if you drop case entirely, you need to have a really strong (Kritikal) reason for doing so (and even then links should include some direct references to case).

Preferences:

While I believe 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. I 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 at hand, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution.

My favorite debates are debates that are directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I love critical, topical Affs). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

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. 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. 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.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

I enjoy more traditional LD and have been judging for 4 years on the local MN circuit.
1. If I cant hear you I can't score you.2. if I can't understand you I can't score you. This means I don't want to listen to word vomit. Make arguments not droning noises.3. Its varsity, I will only ask you once to speak up or slow down.4. I like logic.5. I don't understand theory or kritiks, So if you run it you will probably lose because it's an uphill battle.6. Ties go to neg because Aff has the burden of proving the resolution.

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!!

For an email chain, my email is tgilbert@alumni.stanford.edu

Background:

University of Iowa MD '26
Stanford University BS '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and coached for 2 years at West Des Moines Valley High School. During my time as a debater, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior years and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. I cleared at the TOC and got ninth at Nationals during my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.

Overview:

I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and didn't contextualize the abuse story to what specifically happened in the context of the debate round.

Theory:

I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.

A few more things you should be cognizant of:

1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework-heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I debated LD for 3 years at Rosemount high school. I coached LD novices at Rosemount for 2 years. I think the best debates are the ones that are heavily involving the value and criterion. I think it is important to weigh all arguments, and to have clash against your opponent. One of my biggest criticisms in varsity debate is that the debate can often become unorganized, so I definitely value organization and it plays a large role into speaker points. I am okay with speed and theory, as long as they are used with a purpose and not just to impress me/ confuse your opponent. This said, I don't find frivolous theory useful. In order for the debate to remain clear for me, I need the upper level jargon terms to be defined by the debater, so that I can follow along. Since I work with novices, I am not always familiar with every term. I am okay with pretty much every argument, as long as it is not offensive. I do not appreciate rudeness either, please be respectful at all times to me and your opponent.

I am a Tradition LD judge.

I do not care for Theory or Kritiks.  Debate the Resolution given.  No funny, crazy or wild stuff.

Speech speed - I Flow along with the Debate.  I suggest you do not Spread.  I am semi-fast but I want to make sure I get ALL of your case.  Please go slow over Author tags/cards/evidence, I don't want to miss giving an Author their due.  I do not want to see your case, your job is to tell me about it.  You will benefit from being well-spoken and limiting your speech speed. 

I am an expressive judge, you will know if you've lost me with your speed, speech clarity or funny stuff.  Take my cues and correct your actions.

Speaker points range from 27-29 usually.  I rarely give a 30.  Swear words or being abusive to your opponent are a no-no and will immediately go to 25 and continue to go lower if you behavior continues.

I expect you to respect your opponent and me. And my decision.  I am the "worst Judge ever" to at least one debater in this round. I am OK with that. 

Cover your case and your opponents.  Road map, sign post and voters are always a good thing.  If you feel the need to destroy or talk down to your opponent, I'm not your judge.

During cross-examination you will look at me, not at your opponent.  If I write during CX, that means I missed something in your speech.  CX is my favorite part of the Debate, please don't make me write.  If you bring what you've learned out of CX, that makes me happy.

Flex Prep - nope.  That is why you have a cross-examination.

I've found I dislike - "if you don't believe that Judge, then...," makes me feel like you are lying me.

I do not disclose.

Background. Total rounds debated in HS: 5 policy, 2 LD. Coach since 1987, policy and LD. B.A. double major history/economics, M.A. history. Currently teach AP US history, AP US government, AP Comparative Gov and AP Micro & Macro Econ. Published author (history). Mostly coaching novice in recent years, so probably a few years behind in national circuit trends. I'll listen, but they may need more explanation.

(Update January 2024: I have not been coaching this year and will be a bit rusty. Not clueless, but any new theories or trends will need a bit more explanation. My flowing speed may also be down about 5-10%.)

I'd prefer not to be on an email chain. I want to listen to the arguments. You also increase the chance for me to intervene if I think your evidence is lined down in a sketchy or unethical way.

I believe that the debaters should be allowed to debate the arguments that they think are best suited to the resolution and the opponent's arguments. Semi-tabula rasa, probably default to comparative worlds unless you give me a reason not to. Feel free to do so.

While I will attempt to render a fair ballot on whatever arguments are presented in the round, I do have some policies or preferences.

I contend that debaters should actually sound like they know what they are talking about. With novice debaters I will act as a patient teacher. With varsity debaters I will have less sympathy with a debater who is reading a position they clearly do not understand.

Debates should feature clash, and both debaters have an obligation to argue positions which are open to clash. Ideally, these positions should at least attempt to engage the resolution. I will listen to narratives, but as these generally avoid clash on anything but a theory level, they are less preferred. I am not fond of narratives or other positions that essentially guilt the judge into voting for a debater. Just because I didn't vote for your narrative doesn't mean I reject you or your identity or your position. It is not ok to equate my ballot with me being an oppressor. Plans and counterplans are valid in LD debate, but they must be run properly. I judged (nat circuit) policy from 1997 to 2009, if that's any help.

I will listen to theory positions and enjoy a well thought out theory debate. Kind of. I insist that you actually engage the theory debate on its merits. I dislike rounds in which a ton of theory crap is tossed out hoping the opponent will miss some tiny little spike which is then blown up to monumental proportions in rebuttals. Just because you call something an absolute voting issue doesn't mean it is. I am much more likely to vote for a person winning on the substantive issues even if they allegedly mishandled the third subpoint on an RVI.

I will be extremely reluctant to "drop the debater" except in cases of in-round misconduct. Debate is about arguments, not people. A claim of "drop the debater" better have a lot of support and can't just be one more response on your list of bullet points. I will consider intervening against this argument.

I am willing to listen to other pre-fiat arguments such as Kritiks. Again, you need to understand the position and it should be germane. I tend to believe that most kritiks should have a viable alternative, but would be willing to listen to a claim that they don't.

Updated for Blake 2017
Email Chain: lindenjack1@gmail.com

Background:
I am currently a sophomore at the University of Minnesota double majoring in physiology and economics. I debated at Eagan High School for four years in LD. I competed on both the local and national circuits. I judged quite a bit last season (2016/2017) but Minneapple was my first tournament this season and Blake is my second.

Short version:
I am fine with virtually any kind of debate that you want to have. I find that the most interesting debates are ones where both debaters are running arguments that they actually find interesting, no matter how abstract the arguments may be. That being said, I’ll vote off of pretty much anything if it is run well and I can understand it.

Speed/Logistical Stuff:
Speed is fine to a certain degree but I would slow down A LOT for tags, impacts and short numbered/lettered arguments. I probably cannot flow you at your top speed if you are not extremely clear. I have been away from the activity for quite some time now and my ability to flow at high levels is no longer probably, but rather certainly in the dumpster at this point. I will say clear twice, but after that I will probably just stop flowing if you aren’t making an effort to slow down. At that point I can’t guarantee that I will have any idea what your arguments are. You will know in the RFD and through speaker points if that is any consolation.

I do not care if you sit or stand. Lay on the floor for all I care. Heck, I'll even add 2 speaks for levitation. As long as you are comfortable the room set-up doesn’t matter much to me.

Framework:
I like debates where there is well thought out framework comparison. I suppose one traditional aspect of my judging preferences is that when it comes to a substance debate I really want to see a clear winner on the framework to make the rest of the contention level offense easier to evaluate under the winning framework. Keep in mind that framework is not offense so be sure to link impacts into your own as well as your opponent's framework. Additionally, proper weighing analysis is a great way to boost your chances at getting my ballot.

Theory:
Theory is perfectly fine as long as it is legitimate. I most likely have a higher pain tolerance for theory than most other judges. Do not interpret this as though I really like theory. Generally speaking, I think that the educational benefits of a debate can be squandered when theory gets involved. However, I stand by my assertion (sometimes regrettably) that I will listen to any arguments that are presented. Theory is a legitimate tool that can be used to counter abusive tactics as well as to alter the approved methods of debate in the community. Therefore, do not feel like you cannot run theory for strategic reasons in front of me, but just know that I will have a much lower threshold for responses, especially if the shells suck. Like any argument, it's quality often represents the quality of the response. If someone doesn't violate the interp. then it should not be too difficult to create an I meet. I don’t presume that theory is an RVI but I’m sympathetic to that argument (especially on the affirmative). I’m more likely to grant an RVI if there is sufficient turn ground on the standards. If there is not then I’ll just evaluate substance. PLEASE explain the interp. more than what is written in the shell as it relates to the abuse of the opponent. It may not be in your best interest to let me imagine all the possible consequences of your interp. and the ways to formulate an I meet. I default to drop the argument. I’m generally not a fan of drop the debater unless there is actually abuse. I default to competing worlds, however, truth-testing or any other interpretation is fine.

Topicality:
Go for it.

Plans/CP:
CPs are perfectly fine but please make sure you have a full understanding of its implications in relation to the specific AC before running it. This probably sounds like a given, however, I get really sad when I read/hear CPs that have essentially no competition whatsoever. I’m probably not going to be very likely to vote you up if you cannot properly articulate these arguments. Specific evidence against a type of CP gets you bonus points.

I don't mind plans but they haven't ever been my absolute favorite. Honestly, I find most plans boring and annoyingly specific. Just make sure that you slow down for the text and important tags. If it is creative then there is a far higher chance that I will enjoy it.

Kritiks:
I enjoy a good K debate. I ran a lot of kritiks in high school so I can most likely say I know how they function. That being said, you NEED to explain the K very well to me. Make the link(s) very clear and attempt to have a decent alternative/role of the ballot. Of course specific topic literature is best and super generic cards/authors that can be used on every topic aren't quite as desirable. However, put your own spin on the kritik. It’s probably my favorite type of argument so I’ll be all ears to any strategy. Keep in mind that you should not assume that I have ever read anything from or even heard of your authors. Sure, I’ve read a great deal from a specific group of authors but whatever it is that you may be reading will most likely be completely new to me. It will make me very sad if you cannot explain your arguments clearly and concisely in cross-examination as well as in rebuttals. If you explain the arguments well, run whatever you want and I will most likely enjoy it.

Dis-ads:
Yes. Show clear link story. Uniqueness is cool too. Much like K’s, creative and specific dis-ads are fun to hear so don’t hesitate.

Tricks:
No. If they aren’t displayed clearly in the first speech then I’m fine with treating them as new arguments and will accept new responses. Please do not read an AC with four minutes of short spikes or I seriously might fall asleep. Additionally, I really don’t like presumption/permissibility arguments. For both of our sakes, don’t run them.

Skepticism:
I guess. I’ll try my best to evaluate. If you successfully pull off the true love response to skepticism then I’ll guarantee a 29.9.

Performances/LARP:
I’m fine with these but I also don't think that I am the best judge to run them in front of because I may not be able to evaluate them as well as you want me to. I would occasionally run into such arguments but certainly didn't run them when I debated so keep in mind that I have very little experience with evaluating them. I certainly will not reject it, especially if it is interesting and well put together. Go for it and I will do my best to make a quality decision. However, proceed with caution.

Arguments I won’t vote for:

1. Arguments that are blatantly offensive to me or your opponent.
2. Naturally, I’m against arguments like racism good, rape culture good, or any other types arguments which justify oppression.

THAT BEING SAID, if you want to run something like extinction good, or something wacky in that realm of debate then I will be okay with it as long as you say why it leads to the end of oppression or some intuitively “positive” end result. My threshold is usually low. Pretty much, run whatever you want, as crazy as it might be. I do really like abstract and creative arguments so I’ll evaluate them as best I can.

Things that will make me most sad:

• Wasting time with flash drives
• Being really rude to anyone in the room
• Pointless value debates such as Morality < Justice
• Forcing me to intervene in the result of poorly clashing arguments
• Arguing with the decision and asking about speaker points following the round…
• Not knowing the speech times…

Speaker points: I have never really been a speaker point fairy. I really think that debaters should work to earn speaker points. I like a high spirited debate. Speaking ability will NOT factor into who wins the round. I will vote on the arguments that win the round. I will probably start at a 27.5 and move up or down depending on how well you argue.

Points will be given as follows-
30: You should win the tournament and most other tournaments in which you run this strategy
29: You debated excellently, definitely deserve to break and go far
28: You debated very well and should have a winning record
27: You debated pretty well, there is room for improvement
26: You debated a bit lackluster
25: I’m unsure if you were on the same wavelength as where this round was going
24 or lower: You have done something offensive or made me mad
* If you are facing someone who is clearly a significantly lower experience/skill level and you are blatantly abusive I will take what speaker points I was going to give you and subtract 8:)

In conclusion: It comes down to this: make clear links, claims, warrants and impacts. Write my ballot for me as they say. Be proud that you are a part of such a wonderful activity. Most importantly of all, have fun.

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Aisha Mohamed

I am a studying Political Science, and Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature at the U of M. I was an LD debater in high school for four years and was the captain my senior year. I mostly competed on the local circuit but I am knowledgeable about national circuit practices as well. 

I look at and teach LD with a very clear system of links in mind: Resolutional Action --> Contentions (Reasons why RA is good) --> Criterion --> Value --> Resolutional Value Word or Interp (Morally, Justified, Ought, etc.). Especially at varsity levels, I expect you to be able to provide offense in the round not only through your cards and contentions but also through links from those to your criterion and value. One of the universally weakest links I see in most LD debates is links from contention/card level to framework, so if you can pull that through and impact back to framework and resolution, you'll win me over. Don't just read cards at me; I expect you to do the work to tell me why they matter.

I will vote on whoever makes the better arguments and can defend them. This means I am okay with kritiks, CPs, theory, etc as long as you run them well--meaning everyone in the round can understand your argument and you can explain why I should vote for it. 

I am ok with speed but be clear. I will signal if you are unclear. Please slow down on tags, important warrants, and signposting. 

Finally, conduct in round is very important to me. If you are racist, sexist, or discriminatory, I will vote you down. Please don't be obnoxious to me or your opponent or it will hurt your speaker points even if I vote for you. 

All in all, be good people who debate well and we will get along.

I'm a parent judge for Lakeville Debate Team. I have been judging debate for two years. My experience lies within the realm of Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for both the local and national circuits. 

Judging Preferences 

I am not a fan of speed, you can talk as fast as you want, but I can only get so much on my flow. If I don't catch it, I do not flow it. I appreciate clear distinct voters. Analysis on evidence and arguments is appreciated. I understand just evidence, but you explaining why your evidence matters in today's round leaves less judge interpretation for me to deal with when the round is over. 

SPEAKER POINTS

I judge speaker points a little differently by tournament depending upon the difficulty, but below is the general outline. I will tank your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents or your partner. I will also boost your speaker points, if you made the round enjoyable to watch and incorporated some humor.

24 or below: Something in this round has gone very wrong. Either something offensive was said or your evidence has been falsified. I am not a fan of either.

25: I couldn't understand a single word you said either because you were talking to fast or not clearly enough. The arguments made had a minuscule effect on debate and were not well presented.

26-27: You were an average speaker. Your speaking was easy to follow, but stumbling and repetition made it a bit difficult. What you were saying was clear and the arguments you were making were good, but weren't the end all be all of the round.

28: Your speech was well organized and easy to follow with minimal stumbling and repetition. Your arguments were structured with the importance and relevance made clear throughout your speech(es).

29: You were a very good speaker and I believe you and your partner have a very good chance of doing well at this tournament.

30: I think you are one of the best debaters I will hear at this tournament and made this debate very enjoyable to judge.

Pronouns: They / She

My Debate Experience: I have been involved in debate since 2011. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in Minnesota. I have 4 years of coaching experience at schools in the state. Currently in grad school so taking a break from coaching, but am a lead instructor at the Minnesota Debate Institute. Experience with all formats.

For all Formats: Any arguments that are offensive are not going to be evaluated, you WILL lose speaker points, and probably will lose the round. Please don't make me stop the round by saying something offensive.

LD Paradigm:

TL;DR: Run whatever you want, but make sure you are clear and can explain the arguments to me. Do clear impacting and weighing for me, don't make me search through the flow (hint: I won't do it for you). Have clear voters. Be respectful of your opponent and the debate space.

I have realized that most of y'all go way faster than I can flow (especially with analytics). Please slow down a little bit... thanks. Take your max speed level and go about 50% of that in front of me. Note: I will not yell clear. I will just put my pen down. Therefore, I encourage you to look up for the taglines and impact analysis to make sure I am still with you.

I am down with mostly anything. I believe that debaters are at their best when they run case positions that they are confident and comfortable with running. I will do my best as your judge to understand and follow what you are saying. I am flow-oriented so I will not intervene on arguments so... you need to tell me where I need to vote and why.

Pro Tip: Don't just read things to read them, have a strategy and purpose behind them.

Public Forum Paradigm:

2023 Update: Heyo! Take your fastest speed and go about 50% of that in front of me if you are doing a lot of nitty gritty analytic responses or weighing. I have a really hard time catching the relevant analyses if you fly through it faster than my brain can even process it.

- Do NOT paraphrase evidence and make sure your evidence has warrants. I am not the person to paraphrase cards in front of... I will not evaluate them. Nor am I someone who will buy the one sentence card that is supposedly the end all be all evidence. You need warrants.

- Make sure that you are impacting your contentions. I NEED weighing on the contention level to evaluate between two opposing claims. If you are running short-term impacts and your opponent is running long-term impacts, I NEED the clash and weighing between which is preferable for me to evaluate on.

- Speaking of clash - please do it.

- I am open to any type of arguments/styles in PF. If you want to try out some new strategies, DO IT! This is your time to run what you want to. I can give you feedback on what strategies worked and what didn't work in front of me.

- I am very flow oriented. Extended through ink is one of my greatest pet peeves. Also, if you are making a new argument in the final focus, I will recognize that and probably will not evaluate it.

- 2nd Rebuttal - you need to go over your own case. At the very least, I need you to cover the turns that are on the flow. On the flip side... do not go over your own case in 1st rebuttal, you are wasting time in my book.

CD Paradigm:

- Top ranking students in chambers that I judge remain active throughout the session (multiple high-quality speeches, questions, and noticeably paying attention to other speakers) and have nuanced analysis that builds off of other speakers (refutations or supportive analysis oriented).

- Canned speeches are not super welcome unless it is the first aff or first neg speech.

- Clash is the most important aspect missing from CD. Build off of other speakers, add analysis, and respond to the opposing claims when appropriate.

- Remain as active as possible in chamber throughout the session. I pay attention to who is asking the questions and the types of questions you are asking. If you get a 30 second block, use the whole time!

- Analysis and warrants to support you claims is critical. Lower speaker points (under 4) demonstrate a lack of content or analysis of the arguments. If you wish to obtain a score of 4 or higher in your speech, make sure you are using sources and explaining the context surrounding your warrant/data and build off of other speakers before you.

My background: I have been judging/coaching LD debate off and on for 15 years.

How to win: I will generally vote for the debater who is winning the arguments with the clearest links to a standard. While I personally do not care for theory, I will certainly flow it and vote on it if it is explained clearly and not just a shell/time suck. I would rather you focus your energy on weighing rather than trying to cover everything. My biggest pet peeve is a round with no conflict. I want to see an actual debate, not two people on unrelated tangents.

How to get good speaker points: Your definition of "good" and mine are probably different. I generally take away speaker points if you're not being a decent human being. If you don't abuse your prep time and are not being rude to me or your opponent, you should be OK.

Other extraneous stuff: I will generally flow anything that is intelligible and signposted. If I stop typing and you're still talking, I either can't understand you or I don't know where to flow whatever you're saying. I will not keep time or give an oral critique unless forced. 

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.

First, a little about me. I have been judging public forum debate for about 10 years (does that seem possible). I am pretty straightforward in terms of what I look for in judging a pf round. Do you clearly state what your contentions are? Are the contentions directly related to the question that is being debated (this sounds elemental but I can remember a number of times that teams tried to bring up arguments with no direct link to the resolution.) I am judging public forum (not policy) so you don't have to try and impress me with how fast you can talk. As a matter of fact, excessive speed will work against you on my ballot.

Do you provide good blocks to your opponent's contentions or did you ignore or drop them? Do you make good use of the time you have available or do you leave time "sitting on the table." I do not do the elaborate flows that some judges do. My theory is that the more time you spend writing the less time you spend listening.

All contentions must be backed by evidence. You should always be able to produce your evidence for your opponent or me if it is requested in a reasonable amount of time. Inability to locate evidence will lower your chance of winning the round. Falsifying or misstating evidence will lose you the round.

I listen VERY closely to cross fire rounds. This is really the only unscripted part of the debate and I have seen many a close debate that was won - or lost - due to crossfire.

Finally, be professional in how you handle your round and treat your opponent. Facial expressions while your opponent is debating, rolling of the eyes, arrogance, being condescending etc. do not sit well with me.

I'm a forth year parent judge that splits time between LD and PF.

I prefer slower, in depth, articulate speakers. Not a fan of spreading. if I can't understand what you are saying, I won't flow it.

I like a good contention level debate. Make sure your arguments clash and you're not just replying to your opponents tag line. Address all of your opponents points, clearly extend your points and weigh them against your opponents. Call out your voters.

Make sure you arguments tie into an organized framework. I have a hard time weighing your arguments if your all over the place or if they don't tie back to the framework.

I enjoy a spirited debate but you must ALWAYS be polite and respectful to your opponents. If you are a jerk or derogatory to your opponent, your speaker points will take a major hit.

Email: joshyou12@gmail.com

I did LD at Lakeville North from 2009-2013 and coached LD at Apple Valley from 2013-2017. I also did NPDA-style college parli from 2013-2017.

Overview:

• In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that uses the topic lit. I tend to enjoy "policy" arguments and moral philosophy debates the most.
• I have only judged 1-2 tournaments a season since the 2017 school year so I might not be familiar with latest LD lingo. Minneapple 2021 is the first tournament I've judged in approximately one year.

Speed/clarity:

• I value clarity very highly, both in terms of enunciation and adequately explaining arguments. I deeply dislike judging rounds that I can't understand for one reason or another. I have more to say about this in the theory and K sections but please understand that I promise to reward clarity and punish lack of clarity, so it is in your interest to make sure I understand you.
• All that said, speed is fine per se.
• I won't look at speech docs before the end of the round.

Theory:

• I'll vote on theory if you win it. But I'd rather not hear theory most of the time, so if I think your shell is frivolous you'll get lower speaks and I'll have a low threshold for responses to it. This also applies to ACs that are loaded with spikes/paragraph theory.
• It is in your best interest to explain arguments well and not dump a lot of one-liners that I will struggle to get on my flow. I rarely catch more than half of the arguments in a theory underview, and the ones I do get down are usually unwarranted or underwarranted. "Concession" by your opponent will mean very little if anything in these scenarios.
• I'm not really a fan of the RVI despite not liking theory. If you can beat back a frivolous theory shell quickly I would prefer you go back to substance.

Kritiks/critical stuff:

• I’m fine with Ks in principle but in practice many suffer from inadequate explanations of content and function. I have very little patience for sophistry or obfuscation and I will not hesitate to discount or disregard arguments that are not sufficiently clear. If you absolutely need to read a dense or jargon-heavy card, then the tag should be in plain language, define the key words or phrases in the card, and explain the argument in enough detail to be understood.
• I won't necessarily intervene against performance and non-topical affs but I'm pretty inclined to think the aff has to be topical.
• It's totally fine to argue that a given round should be dedicated to thinking about how to combat a certain type of oppression but for hopefully obvious reasons I will not take that to mean that only impacts to a specific demographic group matter when evaluating the policy/method/whatever being debated.

Policy arguments:

• I love good util/policy-style debate. However, I find bad util debates annoying to judge since I often have to intervene to resolve them. If you want to avoid that, then develop and weigh your impacts. All util debates are math problems, treat them as such.
• Your evidence almost certainly doesn't say that you control 100% of your terminal impact and I will pay attention to that, even if your argument is conceded.
• On the same note, I tend to discount poorly-justified big-impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not synonymous). I am not biased against extinction arguments (the opposite, really) but I also prefer smart arguments.
• I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic lit. Unfortunately many recent LD topics have featured hyper-specific/unbalanced plans and I am pretty receptive to T in those cases.

Counterplans:

• I really like good plan/counterplan debates and I think the neg should nearly always run a counterplan. As for theory, I am annoyed by lot of PICs (specific interps/counterinterps are good here) and strongly dislike agent CPs (no need for specificity as they're all bad). I lean towards condo good.

Framework/philosophy:

• I'm fine with philosophy-heavy cases as long as they're well explained. I like good framework debates but I prefer frameworks that allow for interesting contention-level debates (I'm not saying you have to engage on the contention level, but it's a good heuristic for whether your framework is "tricky" or "squirrelly").
• I default to thinking that intuitively good/bad things really are good/bad. I appreciate good counterexamples/intuition pumps. Making your opponent's framework sound silly in cross-ex will help your speaks a lot.
• If the framework debate or the contention debate under the winning framework is ambiguous, I default to accounting for moral uncertainty.
• I dislike theoretical (that is, debate theory) framework justifications.

Speaker points:

• You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
• You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
• I'll do my best to calibrate my speaks with the overall judge pool but it's possible my speaker points won't quite keep up with point inflation now that I'm not judging very often.

Misc:

• To the extent that extensions are a mere formality (e.g. when there is no clash on an entire layer of the debate) I'm not picky about them at all and you can be extremely brief but they definitely matter if you want to do warrant comparison and weighing.