I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.

I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative. For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts a larger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.

T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.

This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.

I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.

Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.

My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know.

I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.

Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
30=Perfect speech
27.5=Average
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior

If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at kicktosscatch@gmail.com

For any questions feel free to email me at benwberger@yahoo.com

Hey! I'm Ben, a debater from St. Paul Central HS. I use He/Him pronouns. I debated in middle school for 2 years with the topics of IDEA, and Water Resources. I have debated the Economic Inequality topic in HS.

Be nice and have fun! Debate is fun activity that we chose to spend our time doing. I think anything hateful, mean, or just generally unkind things are bad for debate. This is not to try and stop from being assertive, please be, but just dont make things get mean. This of course means you should be respecting pronouns and names of everyone in the round and outside the round. Don’t be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobia or any of the other -ist's. Also pet peeve of mine is teams saying CX was ‘embarrassing’ for the other team, so don’t say that.

My job when judging is to make sure you get the most out of every debate. If there are any concerns, issues, or something like that, please tell me so I can best help you. If you feel most comfortable emailing me then please do so. Especially if there are any accessibility issues I want to make sure everyone has the best possible experience with debate.

Tech > truth although i doubt there are many judges who would disagree on that.

Tech issues happen so just lmk if anything is going on.

Tag team/open cross-ex is fine, just make sure the person who is the intended speaker does most stuff. If your against a maverick team then no tag team. If you high five or like fist bump them before 'tagging in' during CX, ill be very happy. I don't mind if you stand or sit when giving your speeches or CX.

PLEASE try to flow every speech. It is a good habit to have early, because the later you go on in debate the harder it gets to break that habit(trust me on this, I am still trying to get out of this). Especially as the NEG, flow the 2AR because it will be very helpful to you.

Finally if anything is misspelled in my feedback its because I am awful at spelling and I can't figure out how to make spellcheck work on tabroom lol

+0.1 speaks if you mention how birds aren't real in a creative way(not in MS debate sorry y’all).

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

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

Etiquette & Common Questions

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

Spreading

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

Paragraph long tags

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

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

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

Topicality/Theory

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

Disclosure Theory

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

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

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

Kritiks

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

CPs/DAs/etc

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

Framework (LD)

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

Random thought on util

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

Overviews/Underviews

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

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

♥

Sofia she/her

pls be kind and have fun<3

i want you to be comfortable in debate and for it to be a safe and calm environment for everyone involved, debate is often stressful and i want to help make it feel less so. let me know if you need anything.

i'm a high school debater and i would love for everyone i judge to join high school debate!! ask me any questions you have!

please read your evidence clearly and loudly

i will evaluate what i hear in round, so please include impact weighing ("my impact is more important because...") and explain why you should win in final rebuttals so that i can decide the winner at the end of the debate

♥

Hi! I’m James (He/Him).

I’m a current Central HS debater (2a/1n). My only rule is to have fun and be inclusive/nice to your competitors.

I will vote you down/dock points if:

• you’re sexist/homophobic/racist
• you fail to read a plan text
• fail to signpost
• not use all of your time in speech (just talk about anything)
• tag teaming is ok, don’t speak for your partner tho
• bringing up CX OUTSIDE of the next speech

I like to consider myself an "experienced debater", I have been debating since 2015, and coaching since 2018. I will sustain most arguments in a round up through spark, I used to read spark. However, if you read any racism, sexism, ableism, any other "ism" good arguments I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose (and use my magic judge political capital to make you lose the rest of your rounds). Additionally, I will fill out paperwork for you to get 0 speaks. The line is drawn from a hypothetical silly argument, to real world harms from the words you say.

K AFF

Run em, expect T debate, win T debate, standers alone if done well will get you the ballot. Win. Simple. Also FW is a thing (don't get it confused with framing) don't drop it. If you are running a K AFF I expect the thesis of the 1AC to be in the 2AR.

Do I think you need to link to the resolution...no. You do have to tell me why your issue is more pressing than the NEG's method of debate.

Joke ARGs

Yes.

Disads

Disads are cool, run them if you have them, I like them more than counterplans. Do not run disads that clash with FIAT theory. Do not read more than two uniqueness cards I might fall asleep, your RFD will end up being very empty. Similarly, do not read non-unique, I tell this to my middle school debaters; non-unique is not a voting issue, once again I will fall asleep. I will very, very, very, rarely vote on non-unique (unless its actually non-unique i.e. politics DA's).

Counterplans

I find CP's boring, I am voting on whether the AFF's policy is good, not whether the NEG's could be better otherwise it is just plan vs plan. Obviously, the NEG could always create a better version of the plan because they are not bound by silly little things like topicality. So I think a counterplan has to meet ground, and reasonability arguments. Stand alone counterplans will not be voted on, more often than not they are plan plus. If the net benefit isn't stated before the 1NR I will not weigh the CP. Bonus points if you use a CP to double bind them into a topicality argument, that in my opinion is the best way a CP can be ran.

Kritiks

I love kritiks, run kritiks. I am a K debater, and as such I will likely understand most K's. If you dig out the dinosaur earth K, you will get between 0.1 and 1 extra speaks (depending on your understanding); this kritik is my baby. Further more, joke args are cool, they bring more fun to the "sport", and at the end of the day, I do debate cause its fun, lord knows it doesn't pays well. Having in depth understanding of a K will net you massive speaks, this extends to using the K as an independent DA (if done well), using T debate as links to the K, using the perm to the K as links to the K, ect... On the flip side reading a K, and not understanding the authors you read, will do... something...to your speaks. I am pretty familiar with most generic K's and branches of those. I am also familiar with most philosophical and high theory literature so you may not need to do as much work on explanation in front of me, so feel free to spend more time on the link debate.

Topicality

Don't bother, unless the AFF is actually not topical. Topicality is real life uniqueness, I would rather take a nap. If there are like 3 aff's that meet under your interp, I'm not voting for it. Going for theory off one card will be a rejection of the card not the team for the most part.

I am weird and will vote AFF on topicality if there is a sufficient standards turn, but I am yet to see it happen.

Theory

I'm not sure what debate really is, even after many years, if you can explain it to me on this flow, I would appreciate it. (You get the point) If you are going to run theory, run it right. Know your own theory before running it, or it gets messy fast.

If there is a E-mail chain, add me. ---> Seabass.debate@gmail.com I wont read the cards unless there is extensive debate over them in round. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow the doc I will flow what I hear.

Here's a link to a rick roll ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ If you don't believe me you can click it.

A survey I stole from someone else's paradigm:

Can be more dead inside based on what happens------X------------------------------------Dead inside

Policy---------------------------------------------XK (flexy debaters r so rad and cool)

TechX----------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----X-------------------------------Read all the cards

Politics DA is a thing-----------------------------XPolitics DA not a thing

Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X---- Yes your Baudrillard (In fact u are literally Baudy now!)

Clarity------------------------X---------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-----------------------------------X-----------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------X-----------------IF wE WiN A onE pERceNt RisK...

Longer ev--------------------X--------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------X--I only read what you read

Referencing THIS philosophy in your speech---------------------X---plz don't

Fiat double bind------------------------------------------X-literally any other arg

AT: -X------------------------------------------------------- A2:

Bodies without organs----------------------------X--Organs without bodies (Skeletons are pretty rad)

Structural Inherency-----------------------X------------------Attitudinal Inherency

Red Bull-------------------------Monster (I am poor)------------------Water-------------------X-Milk

Paper Flow---------------------X--------------------Digi Flow

Laptop Stickers-X----------------------------------------Stand Stickers

Line by Line--------------------------------------X---Flow Anarchy

Reasonability------X-----------------------------------competing interpretations

Epistemology-----------X---------------------------Policy

deBAte is A gamE---------------------------X--I would rather not hear this anymore

Bribe---------------------------------------XBigger Bribe

Times New Roman-------------X---------------Comic Sans

I was a policy debater at Highland Park HS from 2017-2020 but have not done debate since. Feel free to speak however fast you want, but make sure you're clear.

I consider myself pretty open minded in terms of debate format and arguments. I don't mind tag team cross-examination or debaters finishing up a sentence after speech time ends. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me!

I appreciate it when debaters keep their own time, and it's a good habit for all debaters to have, but I will also time you because I don't like running over on time.

Background and Contact Information

I debated policy for Rosemount High School from 2016 to 2020 and have been judging since 2020. I completed my undergraduate studies in economics and political science at Columbia University. I have less experience debating and judging Lincoln–Douglas (see Lincoln–Douglas section at the bottom).

Please include huangdebate@gmail.com on the email chain.

For any questions, speech document requests, or other communications, please email huang.charles.j@gmail.com. I am also happy to answer your questions in the room. This is your chance to clarify my views on things not mentioned here that may affect the round, so please ask if there's any uncertainty.

Debate should be an inclusive, accessible, meaningful, educational, and enjoyable activity for all. I encourage you to do your part to make that possible. If there's anything I can do to help make that happen, either before or during the round, please let me know.

Please do not make reference to any of my laptop stickers.

Judging Approach

I am a technical judge: I seek to decide the round based on the arguments presented and extended through the final rebuttals and the technical execution thereof. I try not to let personal predispositions, especially those concerning argument types, interfere with my decisions. Technical execution of argumentation matters generally matters more than truth, though I do value logical soundness and high-quality evidence.

When deciding rounds, I identify what the key questions on the macro level are and then attempt to resolve them by looking to key controversies on the micro level. I look to what's said in the final rebuttals to frame the key questions and subsequently who prevails on the key controversies. At every step, I try to exercise restraint when possible, but poor argumentation, poor execution, and/or illogical arguments make it harder for me to do so. To prevent me from having to decide a round based on my own contrived analysis, you should provide judge instruction in your last rebuttal and engage in clash with your opponents on the warrant level. I will turn to default assumptions only if there is not even a hint of in-round controversy over it. The barrier for overcoming default assumptions is claiming otherwise and beating any relevant contestation, which is a lower bar than having to convince or persuade me otherwise.

Positions and Strategies

– I am just as happy to evaluate a kritikal affirmative as a policy affirmative. I won't automatically vote on framework, don’t hold kritikal affirmatives to an abnormally high standard, and don’t think they’re inherently cheating. I enjoy judging both K v. K and K v. Framework rounds. Whether fairness is an impact, whether debate is a game, etc. comes down to who wins that part of the debate. My record in rounds with kritikal affirmatives is pretty even.

– If what I ran as a debater is important to for you to know:

– On the affirmative, I ran “big stick” and “soft left” affirmatives with plans and frequently made theory the 2AR.
– On the negative, I went for kritiks, topicality/framework, and counterplans/disadvantages each about a third of the time.

– I seem far more willing to vote on topicality, theory, procedurals, and plan flaws than most judges. I often think teams forgo an easy ballot in their favor by not extending theory into their last rebuttal.

– If the other team straight up drops any topicality or theory argument that you have previously indicated is a voting issue, simply saying "they dropped X; that's a voter," is usually sufficient to warrant a quick and easy ballot in your favor.
– If the other team has woefully undercovered or misanswered a topicality or theory argument, you probably don't need to spend much time here either and expect to win. Even though it's often advisable to spend either zero or five minutes of your final rebuttal on topicality or theory, if you are contemplating going for such arguments in your last rebuttal but worried I won’t buy your topicality or theory, consider spending enough time on it to potentially win if I agree with your assessment that it's been undercovered or misanswered (probably about 30–60 seconds) while still leaving time to cover substantive positions.
– How well you justify your interpretation—not what I agree with or think is sensible—matters: I am just as happy to vote for zero conditional advocacies as I am to vote for 10 conditional advocacies.
– It’s pretty hard for me to flow when you speed through your blocks. This is true for both blippy points and super long paragraphs. It’s also hard to evaluate a bunch of blippy standards from both sides without comparative analysis. You will benefit from reading blocks slower, not just rereading your standards as extensions, doing line by line, analyzing the specific round, and impacting out your points.
– Some default assumptions I have: (1) jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote on topicality; (2) topicality debates can be about which team defends a more “true” interpretation of the resolution and need not center around which interpretation makes for a “better” topic; (3) reasonability is about the reasonability of an interpretation, not the reasonability of the plan/purported abuse; (4) I focus on what interpretations justify over any claims of in-round abuse; (5) I will default to judge-kick losing counterplans; (6) almost all theory violations can be reasons to reject the team

– I appreciate a risky, unconventional, or tricky strategy. I think such an approach is often your best bet when you’re quite behind on the flow entering your last rebuttal.

– If you can effectively use a bit of math to support your arguments, that’s great. Don’t worry at all if math isn’t up your alley though of course.

– Positions and actions that disrupt the very fabric of argumentative and personal decency clearly cannot be accepted. This includes variants of "trigger warnings bad." Expect to lose if you say insensitive things or engage in insensitive conduct that make others in the room feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

Substantive Things You Should Do

– Providing judge instruction on how to decide the round is perhaps the easiest way to increase your chances of winning in front of me. This is usually most effective in an overview in your final rebuttal.

– Comparatively analyzing warrants is the best way to increase your chances of winning, though it’s harder. In reasonably close debates, my RFDs almost always eventually come down to which team better analyzed and explained their warrants, in comparison to the other team's, on a key controversy that a key question hinges on.

– When reading kritikal arguments, you should explain your thesis and theory clearly. I should have a clear understanding of your position to vote for it, and do not assume I have extensive knowledge of your theory or literature beyond exposure from debate. I also think debaters are expecting judges to fill in too many argumentative gaps. I decline to do so. You should impact out important substantive controversies on the flow such as ontology.

– Focusing on and developing a few key points on each flow by the end of the round will almost always help you. Impacting out your key points is especially important in the final rebuttals.

Stylistic In-Round Things You Should Do

– You should slow down a fair bit when when making analytics, reading or extending theory, and explaining dense kritikal theory. I may call “clear” or “slow” if I feel I am getting an inadequate flow of your speech, but you should also watch me to make sure I’m following.

– You should send pre-written analytics, especially if you intend to speed through them. I don't have a perfect flow, so if you omit pre-written analytics from the speech document hoping the other team will miss some on their flow, chances are I will also miss some on my flow.

– On each flow, try to do line by line or organize your points (e.g. framework debate, link debate, impact debate, perm debate), especially if the other team has poorly organized their work on that flow.

– The later we are in the debate and the deeper we are on a key controversy, the more useful it will be for you to label your line by line responses with subpoints. A list of subpoints is far more flowable than a paragraph.

– Don't ask for marked copies unless you actually think you're going to use it somehow toward your strategy or invoke it in your speeches. You’re certainly entitled to ask for marked copies regardless though. Marked copies need not omit cards not read.

– When referring to me in a speech, you can just say "you" (e.g. “you should vote negative on presumption”). If you are talking to me outside of a speech, feel free to call me Charlie or Charles. There is never a reason to call me "judge" in the second person.

– Avoid unnecessary abbreviations, especially when it forms a nonsense word (like "squo" or an attempt at pronouncing "xap" in cross-applications).

Out-of-Round Things You Should Do

– Be nice, respectful, and friendly to everyone; avoid being unnecessarily aggressive.

– Have fun, perhaps even be funny or throw in a joke or two.

– Start on time and minimize non-prep, non-speech time.

– Please do not label off-case in the document without a name (e.g. "1-OFF, 2-OFF, ..." or "OFF, OFF, ..." or "1, 2, ..." or "DA, CP, K, T")—doing so will result in lowered speaker points. Instead, you should give and use names for your positions (e.g. "Elections DA, States CP, Neoliberalism K, T-fiscal redistribution"). Expect bonus speaker points for exceptionally well-named off-case positions.

– Tag-team cross-examination is fine unless you physically tag your partner.

– Please time yourselves. I don’t flow anything said after time expires. I will not keep time unless required to by tournament rules.

Rare Things That Impress Me When Done Well

– Giving your final rebuttals off your flow, without reading off your laptop

– Ending a final rebuttal super early when you have enough to win

– Demonstrating strong familiarity with your and your opponents' evidence

– Explaining complex kritikal theory or counterplan mechanisms well such that a lay person could understand

– On theory and topicality: clashing on the warrants, contextualizing arguments to the round, improvising your arguments, and not relying on blocks

– Using common sense to help beat blatantly untrue arguments

– On the fiscal redistribution topic, demonstrating a strong grasp of economic concepts

Evidence and Extensions

– My decisions tend to focus on what is said in the final rebuttals, which means evidence quality usually doesn’t factor in too much. That said, I value evidence quality. If you want evidence quality to be an issue, make it an issue, and I’ll evaluate it if needed.

– Evidence quality first and foremost is a matter of whether the evidence supports the claim you’re making. Far too much evidence fails on this front. Evidence often does not come close to supporting what debaters try to use their evidence for in the context of a round, but often the other team fails to use that to their advantage. I think indicting evidence simply based on the fact that it doesn’t say what debaters want it to say is a vastly underutilized tool.

– Reading multiple cards that say the same thing is almost always an inefficient use of your time. Extending evidence and comparing warrants is more beneficial. I only flow tags when you read evidence, which means the warrants don’t get on my flow unless/until you put it on my flow in later speeches.

– I almost never read evidence after the round unless there is controversy in the final rebuttals over what a piece of evidence says or does not say. If you want me to read evidence, instruct me to in your final rebuttal and impact out the evidence.

– I think good analytics can overcome subpar evidence and logical unsoundness. Having not actively coached or debated for a few years, I think common sense and basic knowledge (e.g. about government, economics, world affairs) is often an underutilized tool to beat absurd positions concocted by low-quality evidence.

– Extensions of evidence generally should include (1) the claim and/or the author, and (2) the warrants. If there's contestation on a point, evidence comparison, especially on the warrant level, will be important. The less work the other team does to answer something, the less work you need to do extending it; for example, if the other team doesn’t answer a flow, you don’t need to extend every card. Overviews can be useful, but you should probably still extend key parts (especially on kritiks). I am not inclined to give much weight to tagline and shadow extensions.

– Re-highlightings of evidence should be read in a speech—they can't just be "inserted." You don’t have to read or describe in detail a graph, data table, or image you’re inserting, but I think it’s usually helpful to mention what the takeaway should be.

Watching Me

I may call “clear” or “slow” if it’s egregiously hard to flow your speech, but you should also watch me to make sure I’m following what you’re saying and flowing.

Aside from that, it may be beneficial to note my physical expressions, but you probably should not let them dictate your strategy. Here are generally what my physical expressions indicate, but I can’t promise one of these might not signify something else:

– If you see that I am not flowing, that may mean you're being redundant and/or not adding anything new onto my flow.

– If you see my hands out, palms up, giving a confused, shrugging gesture, that may mean I'm struggling to flow your speech.

– If you see me flowing from the speech document, that may mean you should read tags and/or analytics slower.

– If you see me nodding my head, it usually means I understand the point you're making, think you're making a responsive point, think you’re making a true argument, or agree with your commentary (e.g. they dropped a particular card). It doesn’t necessarily mean you should go for that argument or focus the round on it.

– If you see me shaking my head, it usually means I think your point is illogical, irrelevant, or otherwise non-responsive, that I disagree with your commentary, or that I think the argument you're making is weak (but again, I'll focus my evaluation on what's said in the debate, not how truthful I think your arguments are). If this is happening while I’m not flowing, it likely means I’m not following your speech.

– If you see me squinting, perhaps with a tilt or angling of the head, it probably means I'm confused by what you're saying or why you're saying it.

– If you see me laughing (and you didn't make a joke), I'm probably laughing at an absurdity in the other team's argument that you're pointing out.

Important Point

Especially if you are sick with COVID-19 symptoms or have recent known or suspected exposure to SARS-CoV-2, please wear a mask.

Please do not make reference to any of my laptop stickers.

Lincoln–Douglas

As mentioned, I have some experience debating and judging Lincoln–Douglas. Ultimately, I want you to feel comfortable debating the way you are used to and the way you want to. I will do my best to fairly adjudicate the round that is debated in front of me, so I hope you do not feel a need to over-adapt to my policy background. I think I'll be able to follow along just fine.

My overarching judging philosophy for Lincoln–Douglas is similar to that for policy: evaluate the claims presented to me based on the quality of argumentation and technical execution, seeking to limit how any potential personal predispositions on what the debate should look like or what arguments align with my personal views affect the round. The "key questions on the macro level" will probably relate to theory or framework in most rounds. Unless instructed otherwise (and with compelling reason), I will considering pre-fiat/procedural arguments (theory, topicality) before post-fiat/substantive arguments. As for framework, I don't think you need to dwell on it too much if that of both sides is similar. I think "even if" statements are particularly useful in the context of explaining why you win the round even if you lose the framework. Impact calculus is helpful to avoid an RFD that surprisingly concludes one debater wins under the other debater's framework.

A lot of what I have above for policy applies to Lincoln–Douglas too, especially the importance of explanation and comparative analysis of warrants; dropped arguments are true; I am more willing than most to vote on dropped voting issues; I focus heavily on the final rebuttals (crystallization is good), especially judge instruction (i.e. voters/voting issues); how well you argue your theory interpretation matters more than how much I agree with your theory interpretation; and everything in the "How to Win the Round" section.

That said, I realize Lincoln–Douglas is different from policy. I will try to be sensitive to the norms of Lincoln–Douglas debate, but I am likely more open than most judges to features of "circuit debate" such as kritiks, disadvantages, and counterplans. I do not have the expectation that affirmatives will have plans but am certainly open to plan-based affirmatives. I suspect I may be more amenable to "tricks" since I do not yet have a good sense of what a trick is and may see what you know to be a trick as a clever argument. If an argument gets on my flow, it should get on your flow; if it's on your flow, you should answer it.

After reading the paradigms of many other LD judges, here are some other things I didn't think I needed to include but might be useful for you to know:

– You should provide orders before your speeches and signpost throughout your speeches.

– I focus on the flow and less so on delivery. That said, your speaking needs to be clear and audible. Persuasive delivery can marginally benefit your speaker points.

– Speed is certainly fine, but attempting to rely on a drastic disparity among your and the other debater's speed is frowned upon and unlikely to win you the round. I am just as happy to judge a round with both debaters spreading as one with both debaters speaking at a conversational speed.

– I do not care on which side you sit or whether you sit or stand.

– Just take however much prep time you need and report how much time is remaining after you're done. Unless you don't have a timing device, don't expect me to tell you when you've used a certain amount of time for prep.

– You are welcome to ask questions to the other debater during your prep time. You can take prep time to let the other debater finish responding to a question. You can also take prep time to finish responding to a question asked to you. Cross-examination cannot be substituted for additional prep time.

– I am less familiar with the norms around disclosure in Lincoln–Douglas, so I may be more of a wild card on disclosure theory debates. For either side in a disclosure theory debate, you're going to have to be super explicit about vague concepts like pre-tournament preparation or research burdens and contextualize it to how you practically prepare for tournaments and rounds. Otherwise, my RFD is probably going to sound more arbitrary and contrived than you would like it to be.

– I am thus far unconvinced of the usefulness of underviews, but I will certainly still flow and evaluate underviews like anything else in a speech.

– For theory or topicality, I understand a complete argument to include an interpretation, a violation, standards, and independent voting issue claim (or "reason to reject the argument" point). As generous as I am with theory, I will be far less inclined to vote on what I see as an incomplete theory argument.

– I understand reasonability to be about whether an interpretation is reasonable, not whether the purported violation is reasonable. Feel free to define your reasonability arguments like the latter.

– Here are some terms I found in other judges' paradigms specific to Lincoln–Douglas that I do not know the contextual meaning of well (even after googling them): tricks, LARP, phil, normsetting/norming, permissibility, spike, high theory, frivolous theory (what's the bright line?). If you use terms like these in a speech, please clarify what you understand them to mean. I don't think this means I can't competently judge a round involving any of these, just that I don't know the meaning of the terms themselves.

– Please do not attempt to shake my hand.

– As long as doing so will not delay the tournament, I will disclose my decision, explain my RFD, and answer any questions you may have for me. I will not disclose speaker points before the tournament releases final results.

– If you have additional questions on how I approach judging Lincoln–Douglas (and how it may differ from how I approach judging policy), I am more than happy to answer them before your round.

Hi!

I judge and coach middle school debate, I did 4 years of middle school debate for Yinghua and 3 years of high school debate for Highland. I'm currently a junior at Highland and coach Yinghua debate.

2 important things.

1. 1. In a debate round you need to attack the other teams argument, however you can not attack the other team. At the end of the day this is a educational game, and should not be an excuse to be mean. You need to show a basic respect for the topic you are debating about and the people you are debating against.
   2. 2 is that I cant vote on an argument I can’t hear, make sure you are projecting your voice!

In a middle school debate round (rookie) if you have won solvency that's like 90% of the battle.

For any higher level debate in middle school there is much more wiggle room.

Have fun and keep trying!

Also if you have questions don't email me because I won't see it but you can email djwhite@umn.edubecause he also coaches Yinghua and he will see it!

She/her - respecting others pronouns is non negotiable

I’m currently a coach at Washburn HS, and a former varsity debater for St Paul Central HS. As a debater I was the 2N/1A and leaned towards using Ks and soft left affs

Judging -

Idc what you call me in round but if you're going to use my first name try to pronounce it right (Mar - in)

TLDR - I’ll vote on anything (within ethical bounds) as long as it’s argued + explained well
If you’re a middle schooler read the first 3 sections of my paradigm at least.

Round procedure -

Feel free to ask questions before the round begins, as well as in round as long if it is about procedure

If I’m making origami or something don’t worry I’m still paying attention

I am fairly lax and won't be a huge stickler about certain procedural things, just run them by me before you try anything. I am very empathetic to tech issues; my computer was usually the tech issue... I try to help bridge any accessibility problems that come up (tbh working tech is a privilege that debate takes for granted).

I do allow tag teaming in cross, just please split the time evenly. In speeches however try to avoid talking to your partner during their speech because that’s a pet peeve of mine.

I keep my own timer in round, but also have another for yourself because I am forgetful sometimes.

Presentation/speaks -

Speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying there's less of a chance I will flow it. I am not the fastest at flowing, but on analytics slow down.

I can flow fast spreading for the most part, but please justify the need to speak insanely fast. It won’t add to your speaks if you’re not using that extra time you’re making for yourself to make your arguments more complex.

Make sure to stand up and face the judge (me) while speaking (even during CX), if able.

Pet peeve of mine is unlabeled flows - please label them to make my life easier. It makes it harder to organize my flows so it increases the chance something will be misflowed - and also I WILL name them myself if not given a name, and many people across debate can attest to my unserious naming conventions.

Make sure to use all your time in all speeches - this includes cross-ex!

Please be civil - hateful language or actions will not be tolerated and result in immediate deduction from speaker points (if not an auto L) and an email to your coach.

Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

I like it when constructives are numbered and/or specifically telling me what argument a card is responding to.

You should be pausing, saying “next” (or the like), or changing tone when you start reading a new card’s tag.

Don’t give me overviews or underviews in any of the first 3 constructives unless you really think it is beneficial on a certain flow.

In rebuttals you should be explicitly telling me what I should be voting on and how I should be weighing arguments - write my ballot for me.

Minimize new flows in the block.

Yay direct and explicit clash!!

Tech—O—————Truth

Aff -

I have slightly lower standards for presumption ballots, but mostly comes down to lack of extended warrants. I usually air on the negative side if the aff fails to extend solvency.

I have lower standards for IL chains, unless the neg blows it up.

With me framing will be your friend, especially if you have extinction scenarios.

CPs -

As with any advocacy, you should be clearly explaining what it does and how it has any solvency/net benefits.

I prefer articulated perms but if the neg drops it I’ll vote on very little. I also prefer only one perm, but if multiple are argued and justified well (as well as clearly explaining how they work and the context of them in round) I’m okay with it.

PICs annoy me so I have a low burden for PIC theory.

I have been told I don’t make it clear enough how annoyed I get with most policy CPs in general, so just run them well.

DAs -

The links and IL chain will make or break these for me - defend them with your life.

Prove to me why it o/ws case or takes out a significant enough portion of it.

Kritiks -

Because I am an experienced K debater, I am both a good and bad judge for them. I am probably a bit biased towards well run Ks, but I will not be forgiving with poorly run Ks.

Make sure you explain to the fullest degree anyway if you are running a K because they can be tricky. Walk me through the story of the k and tell me why it o/ws case.

Please don’t just throw around buzz words - they don't mean anything on their own. I know a lot of the high philosophy concepts/definitions, I just usually can't immediately mentally access them while they are being spread through at 300 wpm so explanation is incredibly important.

Signpost your k sections!! - especially in the block and 1ar.

I have trouble flowing fast FW analytics so slow down and make sure its clear.

I am not a fan of non-UQ (oh wow we live in a society) or use-of-state links but I’ll vote on them if they are explained with how it relates to the K impacts.

I have fairly high standards for impact turns, but it mostly comes down to explanation.

Same deal as with CP perms - I'm not a fan of perm walls but I'll vote on them.

Ks are my favorite don’t disrespect them please T-T

Theory and topicality -

I understand most theory/topicality as long as it’s not super niche but please explain it like I’ve never heard of it before - I won’t vote on it if you don’t tell why I should care about it in round. I am not the fastest flow-er of analytics so you HAVE to slow down.

If you start new theory flows after the 1NC/2AC make them relevant or else I will NOT care.

The buzz word standards are the ones I’m most likely to get lost in. It’s fine to only briefly explain during the constructives, but you need to contextualize/impact them during the rebuttals if you want me to care.

In my opinion, voters are not implicit - it's fine ig if you don't have them in the 1NC/2AC but in all further speeches you need to at least mention them.

You don't need to fully explain why theory is prefiat but at least give me like a sentence, don't just drop that and expect me to default to it.

I'm pretty wary of theory tbh, so if you roll up with like 7 theory flows I'm going to be more forgiving if the other side drops something.

Joke args -

I love joke args with my full heart because I believe its one of the little things that make this entire activity worth it sometimes, but there is a time and place for them, as well as the content they project should follow basic ethical standards.

If you do run a joke arg you have to be 100% in it - confidence is key! Look me straight in the eyes while you affirm that the fly spaghetti monster controls the planet. If both teams are in it, this is the most likely time I’ll award 30s lol

My email is marenjlien@gmail.com- please put me on any email chain. If you have any after round questions that aren’t answered in my ballot feel free to email me about it, I’m happy to explain anything.

Cheeky document names or any star trek references will earn you extra speaks. A 30 if you play a musical instrument instead of a constructive.

Try to speak loudly and clearly, I'd rather you just shout than murmur through your speech. Try to use all your speaking time especially in rebuttals. As long as your respectful of one another I'll give you good speaks.

Hi! I'm Kate and my pronouns are she/her. You can contact me or add me to the email chain at knozal@macalester.edu

Some background info for you:

I debated for Rosemount 2017-2021 and I have coached at Highland Park (St. Paul) since 2021. I am currently studying sociology and data science at Macalester College. I mostly judge on the local Minnesota circuit.

If I'm your judge:

First, I want you to enjoy debating and feel comfortable. If there is a way I can support you please don't hesitate to reach out beforehand or whenever a concern arises. I also really value education and I hope you do too. It will make me happy to see you doing your best to learn for yourself, and with your partner and opponents.

Second, I am looking for you to write the ballot for me in your last rebuttal. I don't want to have to do any work for debaters when writing my rfd so if you provide me with a clear way to evaluate impacts and how to resolve the round you will be in a great spot. With that being said, I vote off my flow but I'm not perfect, so it's your job to tell me where and what you want on my flow (aka signposting and clarity of speech are important). Tbh, I don't enjoy tricks or out spreading your opponent. I think the best rounds are when debaters are making smart and competitive choices but also considering others in the round and how you conduct yourself affects the community.

Other info about me as a judge:

As far as argument-specific questions go please feel free to reach out to me by email and I'll respond as soon as I can. My best advice to you is to read what you want to! Debates are way more fun when debaters care about and write their own arguments. When I was in high school I went for Ks on the aff and neg.

hi! i'm eva and i'm a junior at blake in mn. this is my 3rd year doing nat circuit pf.

before round, start an email chain and add BOTH evaredmond25@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com. label the chain appropriately, ex. Emory R1 Flight 1: Blake OR 1st AFF vs Blake CK 2nd NEG

tldr: standard flow judge, do what you do best and everything should go well, don't do isms

**update for february: i haven't researched or debated the topic, so please define acronyms to make sure i understand

if you have any questions not answered here, i think about debate very similarly to shane stafford, christian vasquez, eva motolinia, joshua enebo, or really any other blake debater so feel free to check their paradigms

evidence exchange:

send full speech docs before speeches. if you do this, your speaks won't go below 28.5. if you elect not to do this, your opponent can take prep while you try to find individual cards.

send word docs, pdf, or at the very worst cards in the body of the chain. locked google docs rly suck, pls don't do that.

make sure to send the cards in the email chain, it's ok if you have rhetoric as well, but at minimum cards should be there.

general preferences:

tech > truth, i'll evaluate what's said in the round and make my decision off of that. the one exception to this is if i do not understand an argument well enough to explain it back to you, i won't vote on it.

come to round preflowed, i love rounds that end quickly

offtime roadmaps are fine but please don't make them lengthy. "aff, neg" or "neg, aff" should suffice in most rounds

extend the arguments you want me to vote on in final focus and summary. make sure to extend every part of the link chain for me. if a part of the link chain has been conceded, i will be more lenient with warrant extensions for that part. however, it will make me happy if you tell me why every part of your argument happens.

collapse! the final focus should be one contention and only a few arguments on the opps case. choose your best arguments, frontline them well, and weigh them well.

weighing is also very important. there are 3 types of impact weighing: magnitude, probability, and timeframe. any other mechanisms you can think of are subsets of those 3. a lot of the time probability weighing is defense that should have been in rebuttal which makes me sad since there are interesting and smart ways to do probability other than new defense. metaweighing is ok, but tbh i think a lot of the time it's very unwarranted, i'd rather you just line by line the weighing debate and win the warrants on each mechanism.

smart link weighing is very impressive and will be rewarded. i love turns case analysis and link ins, but these also tend to be very unwarranted. the best link weighing is rooted in evidence. if there isn't evidence, at the very least have a logical warrant.

frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal. the last time you can read new weighing is 1st ff, but i'll have a lower threshold for responses.

i don't flow cross, but i do think it's binding so if there's a major concession, bring it up in speech.

evidence:

debate is a research activity, and the quality of evidence is very important to me. my ideal debate is rooted in lots of evidence comparison and analysis.

if your evidence is egregiously miscut and it's called out, i will probably drop you.

if you can't send the full card when asked (not a pdf or a link), i'll strike it after 1 minute.

paraphrasing is genuinely a horrifying trend, email me if you need help learning how to cut cards or anything.

speed:

i'm a pretty fast debater, so i understand the utility of speed. however, you have to be clear. if i can't understand what you're saying, i won't evaluate it. i'll clear you once, and if you don't slow down i'll stop flowing.

speed is not an excuse to be inefficient or spam bad responses - it should be used to develop more nuanced arguments.

i won't flow off a doc lol. i'll be fine flowing any fast pf round as long as you slow down on author names and tags.

timing:

time yourselves and your own prep please.

i stop flowing 5 seconds after the speech time ends.

framework:

i'm down to evaluate any framework, as long as it's not cost benefit analysis (huge waste of time)

structural violence frameworks can be done very well, but oftentimes they become teams asserting that sv is underprioritized without explaining why that matters. underprioritization is not itself a warrant for why something should be prioritized. please don't say "their threats are all solved because of traditional policymaking" without reading impact defense or a uniqueness response, this is incredibly lazy debating.

i also really don't like prefiat framing. in order to win prefiat framing, you need to be winning a link on substance. if the discourse you're spreading is proven to be bad, i won't vote to spread said discourse. if you're winning a topical link, you're probably already winning the round and going for prefiat wasted a bunch of your time. personally, i haven't yet seen a coherent warrant for why change spills over to the real world.

i won't evaluate arguments that the opponent can't link in to framework or that you should win because you brought it up first. to clarify, you can read arguments that link ins are a worse method of addressing the framework, but voting for a team just because they introduced framework first implodes the debate space.

theory:

theory rounds are pretty boring to judge and i'd rather not, but if you rly rly want to.....

as referenced above, i think paraphrasing is a horrible trend and am very likely to vote on paraphrasing theory. bracketing can be just as bad, i'm very receptive to bracketing shells.

disclosure is good, open source disclosure is best, and round reports are a good norm. winning disclosure theory while full texting will be an uphill battle.

i will not vote on trigger warning theory unless there is a graphic depiction. trigger warnings have been used to silence marginalized groups and pretty much all of the literature concludes they don't do much.

i default to competing interps over reasonability in all of those scenarios.

i default no rvis. you don't need to be winning rvis to win offense on the theory level, either from a counterinterp or a turn on their interp. nobody knows what rvis are these days :(

if friv theory is read, i will evaluate it under reasonability. it's bad for the debate space, and my role as an educator comes before any obligation i have to avoid intervention. if you are questioning whether your theory is frivolous, err on the side of caution and don't read it.

for the same reason, i'll evaluate ivis under reasonability. ivis are another example of lazy debating. read a shell, read a k, or read an ethics violation.

evidence challenges are stop the round issues, not something that i'll evaluate as a theory debate.

Ks:

for topical ks - i have decent experience with security, cap, and fem ir. i can probably evaluate anything simple. for anything postmodern/high theory, i will evaluate but please overexplain. i am not smart enough to explain most of the words that get thrown around in k rounds.

you need to read a link to the k - either from the topic of your opponent - otherwise the k is just a bunch of fun facts about your conception of the world and not a voting issue.

alts should be specific actions. i think the rules of pf create some tension with the existence of alts/neg fiat generally, and i'll be open to theory arguments against alts.

for non topical ks - i do not like traditional pf identity ks. i won't hack, but i haven't yet seen one be well executed in pf. i don't feel comfortable evaluating callouts. similarly, i have reservations about the ballot being used as a referendum on the debate space. there are a lot of forums for social change in debate, but i haven't seen discourse in round change anything during my time in the event. i'm very receptive to arguments about hollow hope, backlash, solvency deficits, and oppression deficits. i'm also a good judge for T as long as you read definitions in your interp.

tricks:

please don't do this like srsly pls.

speaks:

speaks are pretty arbitrary, but i'll standardize them to the best of my ability.

for good speaks:

1. be funny and don't make the round too awkward. at the same time, know when you're taking it too far and be aware of power dynamics in round.
2. don't paraphrase, disclose, send cards on email chain
3. smart weighing/weighing in rebuttal
4. say cork in speech!

after round:

i'll always disclose and there will always be an rfd available on tab

feel free to post round and ask questions, i think it's good for education and holding me accountable. however, you can't change my decision. stay respectful.

if you have any questions, feel free to email me or dm me on fb (Eva Redmond)

good luck, have fun! the best rounds happen when everyone is chill and funny

Experience: I am a fifth-year policy coach for Rosemount High School. I debated for 4 years at Rosemount High School and recently graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in political science (quantitative-focus) and election administration. My main experience in argumentation is in policy-oriented soft-left positions, with a focus on legal theory (court CP's, Court Legitimacy, Test Case FIAT, etc), although I did often run critical arguments such as Neoliberalism, Security, Legalism, and Disability.

Please include me on email chains: sewpersauddebate@gmail.com

Framing: I view debate in a few ways:

1. It is an educational activity first and foremost. Everything else (competitive success, winning, etc) is second to education. If you aren't learning, then you aren't succeeding in debate. If you do things that actively harm someone else's education, then you will get bad speaker points.

2. It is a game - in the sense that it should be fair, and you shouldn't exclude others from the discussion. This means debate should be accessible and respectful. Intentionally misgendering your opponent, saying rude comments or anything like that (especially laughing at the other person giving the speech) is not good for a game. That will also hurt your speaker points.

3. It is a competitive reading activity - you should read your opponents' evidence and attack the specific warrants. The other team's evidence is also the best way to find links to any kritiks. Additionally, this means evidence quality matters -- if you misrepresent your warrants and the other team calls you out for it, I will intervene and only judge the warrant as the author originally intended it.

4. Clarity > Speed - I flow on paper, and if you are reading at one speed that is incomprehensible, then you will get low speaker points. I have voted for teams but given them 26 speaker points to them purely because they did not slow down throughout their speech, creating a borderline unflowable speech. Lack of clarity is anti-education.

5. In-depth conversation and argumentation >>>>> five-off or more - I think the tendency to read as many off-case arguments as possible to out-spread the other team is an inherently bad strategy and extremely detrimental to debate. It certainly damages education. I will absolutely accept Condo arguments if the other team is reading more than four-off, especially if you explain how damaging it is to education. This is one of the few areas where I am very oriented towards (my personal) truth over tech. Reading an unreasonable number of off-case arguments is a surefire way to lose a ballot in front of me. Especially if 3 or more of those arguments are separate advocacies, I will (almost) automatically buy abuse arguments.

Affirmatives: As I stated before, I prefer policy plans, but if you have a more critical advantage, I will not be too lost. I prefer soft-left affirmatives over policy affs, but I've run both types. Advantages that tackle discrimination including Sexism, Ableism, or Racism are very responsive to me, as I believe they have the most realistic impacts. I also generally believe the affirmative must be in the resolution. In other words, if you have a critical aff, this is not the best round to run it. I believe the affirmative should stick to the plan text and should defend that plan throughout the round. I do, however, understand the validity of Critical Affirmatives, but if you cannot answer the questions from the negative like "what ground do we get?" or "how is your model of debate accessible?" during cross-examination, you will likely lose, because I view debate as a game that needs to have at least some semblance of fairness and education. In my experience, some K affs end up being a way to scare other teams from engaging with the arguments and ends up shifting the discussion away from education. Basically, if you're able to defend how your model of debate promotes fairness and education, then K affs are fine. But I generally think plan-based affs provide for better models of accessible debate.

All that said, I have recently coached teams that almost exclusively read a non-topical critical affirmative and my stance has softened slightly on that front. I’ll evaluate your K aff, but be prepared to defend your model of debate and why you think it’s good!

Disadvantages: If you run this and want to win with it, there must be a clear link. If you don't do enough specific link work in the 2NR (i.e. show how the plan directly causes your link chain), I probably won't vote for it, unless the aff never answers it in the 2AR. Also, make sure you do impact calculus between the aff and the DA, and prove why your impact is worse. I also love when a team runs a CP with their DA. For politics DAs, I hate most of these because I think the logic behind these DAs is bad and generally relies on flawed assumptions. Politics DAs can be creative, but the bar for this is very high if I'm your judge.

Counterplans: CP's are a versatile position which I am quite familiar with. I believe Counterplans do not have to be topical, but they should still be competitive. Also, if you run a CP, make sure you answer the Perm, and when you do, make sure that you tell me specifically why it doesn't function. Theory can be an independent voter (when it is impacted out), so don't ignore it. Additionally, I think sufficiency framing is usually a pretty lazy argument that is made by teams who don't think their CP solvency is all that good. You need to prove why the CP solves BETTER than the affirmative, not just that it solves "enough" of the aff. Sufficiency framing is generally not enough for me to vote for the CP.

Topicality/FW/Theory: While the position is more valid when there is clear abuse outlined in the argument, there doesn't always have to be abuse. It can be used effectively as link traps or for other strategic reasons. I also love Effects/Extra Topicality arguments, especially if presented well. For the aff, Reasonability is a valid argument, but if you want me to vote on it, tell me why your plan is reasonably topical under the neg's interpretation and the aff's. On theory, disclosure theory is a non-starter. Do not run this, even as a cheap argument. While it won't lose you the round, it will damage your credibility with me and your speaker points. The only exception to this is if the team discloses one aff, and then changes it at the last minute. Then I can see it being warranted. For the most part, I think theory is usually used as a cheap strategy. Don't use it as that. Use it only if it is well-warranted. A-Spec is usually ridiculous and I don’t think I’d find myself voting for it all that often, although if it’s well-warranted, then maybe (the bar for that is extremely high, so please try to avoid this unless absolutely necessary). Perf con against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Condo against a team reading one-off is ridiculous. Make sure your theory arguments make sense!

Most of all in theory debates, SLOW DOWN! You are essentially reading paragraphs which are incredibly difficult to flow if you just speed through them. I think spreading through theory is anti-education, and is a surefire way to damage your speaker points. I flow on paper, so my flowing speed is limited and I'm not going to flow theory arguments that I missed - it's your burden to make sure I get them. Additionally, if you don't slow down on theory arguments, you will damage your speaker points. Like I started this paradigm with, debate is an educational activity first. If the way you read theory is anti-educational, I will let you know after the round.

Kritiks: I am not great with all K's, so if you run one, make sure you clearly explain the story (especially the link and alternative) if you expect me to vote for it. However, I have run Disability, Security, Legalism, and Neoliberalism K's as well as Word PIKs, and done some coaching on more identity-based Kritiks, so if you're comfortable with those positions, this would be the round to run it. Basically, if you really want me to follow your Kritik, run Security, Disability, Afropess, Language K's, or Neoliberalism. If you don’t care if I understand your position, run Deleuze, Queer Pessimism or Baudrillard. I have a high bar for voting for Kritiks that I am not familiar with. Do not assume I understand your Kritik, explain it at the thesis level. Just as importantly, explain it within the context of the affirmative! What is the problematic assumption or rhetoric that the aff makes/uses? How does that cause the perpetuation of the bad thing you're Kritiking? How does your alternative resolve the issue? A Kritik that earns my ballot will answer all of these questions.

General: Spreading is fine, but make sure you don't go past what you feel comfortable with and SLOW DOWN ON THE TAGS. If I miss your tag because you didn't pause or slow down when reading it, I am not going to flow it for you. Make it clear, or I won't weigh the argument. When you are speaking, make sure you analyze each argument in full and make a coherent claim. Tags should be complete sentences. The word "Extinction" is not a tag. I will not flow it as an argument if that is your tag. Also, please self-time. It really helps me, and especially it helps you.

Please do not try to throw rounds. I have had a team do that in front of me, and I believe that it legitimizes a bad practice in the debate community, is anti-education, and it will severely impact your speaker points if I realize your intention.

Structuring: I will give you extra speaker points if you NUMBER AND SUBPOINT each of your arguments on the flow for the ease of flowing.

Other Positions/Arguments: There are a few positions that I will NEVER evaluate within any round. These include, but are not limited to:

-Racism/Sexism/Ableism Good

-Suicide CP/DA and/or Death K (Seriously. The way this is commonly debated brings with it serious mental health concerns and I will tolerate none of that.)

-Spark/Wipeout/Timecube, etc

Basically, if you think that your position sounds like it advocates for something offensive, don't run it.

Cross-Examination: Make sure you are polite. I am fine with tag-team if both teams agree to it, but if you shout over your partner, I will dock speaker points. Most importantly, remember that CROSS-EX IS A SPEECH. Cross-Ex is a great place to set traps for your opponents, and for you to be able to use what they say in-round against them. I do flow cross-ex, so I know what was said. Don't try to pull one over on me.

To sum it all up in a few points...

1. Education comes first. Debate is an educational activity at its core, and I believe my primary role within the round is that of an educator. If you do things that I deem as harmful to debate education, you will get lower speaker points, and may lose the round.

2. I tend to be a policy-oriented judge, although I am very comfortable with Kritiks. If you want to run one, be sure to fully explain it as if I have never heard of the philosophy before.

3. Cross-Ex is a speech and a great place to form arguments, so use it!

4. Explain everything to the fullest extent, especially links. If there is not enough work done on DA/K/T links, I will not vote for it.

Feel free to ask me any other questions before the round starts!

Hello! My name is Audrey and my pronouns are she/her. If I ever judge high school, add audreysnowbeck@gmail.com to the chain, but I don't think that's going to be necessary for at least two years.

I judge exclusively middle school, so the only really important things I have to say are as follows:

First, BE RESPECTFUL. That means respecting pronouns, your partner, your opponents, and yourself. These are all non-negotiable. If you are acting like a jerk I will give you a look and talk to you after. Debate is dead if it isn't a place where people feel safe.

Secondly, say what you think. Don't get too hung up on making sure you have authors and cards and evidence for everything. If you have an idea that you think is good, I want to hear it because I'll probably think it's good too.

Finally, have fun! Debate shouldn't ever be anything more than a place to learn and try your best.

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Hi there! I'm Lily St Dennis and I use she/her pronouns.

I am a head coach for the Highland Park Middle School debate team and currently debate on the Highland Park High School varsity team. I have been involved in debate for 7 years and think it is a great place for students to learn how to communicate ideas and learn about current events.

I only judge middle school tournaments so no one is really gonna see this but:

1) Debate is supposed to be fun. It can be easy to get down on yourself when it comes to losing rounds, but I feel that it is more valuable that you are learning how to articulate your thoughts and ideas to others. Just by attending the tournament, you are killing it!

2) Debate should be a safe space for people so bad sportsmanship and lack of respect for the people around you(and yourself) is not cool.

3) if you have question about anything at all (i mean it), please feel free to email me! stdennislily@gmail.com

:)

add me to the chain: mariestebbings@gmail.com

last updated: 12/18/2023 (deleting outdated sections, reorganizing, expanding ethics)

background: minneapolis south ‘19 (toc, primarily ran kritikal arguments), light coaching for minneapolis south in ‘19-20. i judge a few national & udl tournaments every year.

online debate: 20% slower please! if my camera is off i’m not there.

tldr: you do you; i will be happiest judging whatever you find exciting/strategic and have spent quality team researching. tech > truth insofar as i try to stifle any lingering debate biases and give an objective decision based on the flow. i won’t write a ballot on an argument that wasn’t made in-round and i try not to impose my opinion on what is true, with the exception of violent/oppressive arguments*. i mostly judge clash debates and my voting record is pretty even.

--

below are some notes on evaluation rules i abide by & guidelines on how to explain arguments, win, & earn high speaks

general: arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be evaluated. i will always follow the ‘ballot of least resistance’ and make the laziest decision possible; tell me what my rfd should say. instructing me on what you believe the key issues are, how you believe arguments interact with each other, and engaging in comparative analysis will help you tremendously.

evidence comparison: i skim evidence throughout the debate. i won’t incorporate my thoughts on your evidence quality into my rfd unless it’s necessary to resolve an argument, but i think a certain degree of judge intervention is necessary in debates over evidence quality to maintain reasonable debate (ex. you can't blatantly lie about what a card says if the other team points out you're lying). i enjoy judging well-researched rounds and think debaters who spend time finding good evidence should be rewarded.

speaker points: ~28.6 is average, ~29.3+ is deserving of a speaker award. being clear, knowing your evidence, making strategic decisions, hard-hitting cx questions/answers -> high speaks. obviously not flowing the debate -> low speaks. if i catch you clipping (repeatedly skipping ~three or more words in cards), i will drop your speaker points regardless of whether the other team points it out.

please flow: i will think you’re silly if you ask for a doc with unread cards deleted unless the prior speech was egregiously skipping around, i will think you’re silly if you respond to an unread or dropped off case, i will think you’re losing the round if you don’t respond to substantive analytics or follow a line-by-line structure.

cx: is binding and i usually flow it.

framework: debates over counter-interps/models make intuitive sense to me. i’m not opposed to 2ars that solely go for impact turns to framework but you should invest hefty amounts of time in framing my decision.

t: i really appreciate model comparisons (caselists, lost/gained neg ground, etc.). please define what reasonability means if you go for it. i never have a ton of topic knowledge & will need extra explanation for acronyms and topic norms.

kritiks: tech > truth means i won’t create my own arbitrary framework interpretation. the more specific your analysis is to the opposing team’s arguments, the better chance you have of winning. aff teams could generally improve their link answers, and neg teams could generally improve their alt solvency.

cp theory: i default to judge kicking cps if asked. the more obviously abusive your counterplans are, the harder it’s going to be for me to suppress a gut-check reaction to cp theory.

das: specific/quality ev > recent ev (explain why the date matters) > quantity of ev.

case: i love case debates that dig into the ev and point out logical holes/inconsistencies in the aff’s ev and internal link chains.

theory: please don’t spread at max speed through your theory blocks. i find counter-interps helpful for framing the majority of theory debates.

misc: re-highlighted ev must be read, not inserted. sending exact text for perms, theory interps/violations, and/or framework interps is a good practice. strict on 1ar-2ar consistency, will give some leeway if the 2nr had new arguments/warrants. no new 2ar cross-applications across different flows.

be nice to new debaters: in clearly asymmetrical debates (ex. a team with 5 bids vs a team at their first varsity tournament), taking the time to slow down and 'over-explain' your arguments so all the debaters can engage with the round is a much more persuasive strategy for high speaker points than outspreading and out-jargoning your less experienced opponents.

--

*ethics: facilitating an environment where debaters are reasonably protected from immediate hazards to their wellbeing overrides my commitment to attempting to be a neutral arbitrator. i reserve the right to auto L with the lowest speaks possible if a debater’s in-round words or actions are oppressive or threaten anyone’s safety. however, i prefer to avoid using the ballot as a punitive instrument and assume fixable ignorance (not intentional violence) on ‘gray area’ issues.

while i strongly empathize with frustration over the community’s seeming inability to address intra-debate violence, including the continued presence of individuals who are oppressive or harm others, i refuse to adjudicate out-of-round grievances in a competitive context. if desired, i will assist any debater in talking to a tournament administrator, ombudsperson, or coach instead.

--

good luck, have fun! feel free to email me with any questions.

Let's all have a good time and learn some stuff. Do what you feel you are best at and try to emphasize clash. Specific questions can be directed here: swedej@augsburg.edu

Very important note: If you and your partner choose to do tag team debate then you must "tag in" if you want to ask a question and "tag out" when you're done asking questions. How you tag is up to you (high five, fist bump, etc.), but you must do it.

Other notes:

I've been in debate for 19 years - have debated, judged, and coached at regional and national tournaments in high school and used to compete for the UofMN in college, now am Program Manager of the MNUDL. I'll do my best to flow, you should do your best to signpost and clearly read tags and cites. I judge about 10-15 national level high school debates a year. I want to be included on the email chain so I can check for clipping and/or whether a team claims they read something they did or didn't, but my flow will reflect what words come out of your mouth, not what words are in your speech doc. If you want an argument on my flow then make sure you are being clear and articulate; speed isn't a problem for me, but being unclear is. I'll let you know if I can't understand you at least 3 times. At that point if you don't adapt it's your problem :) I will do my best to judge debates in a non-biased way and give you a decision/feedback that I would have liked to have had as a debater/coach.

One other note that hopefully won't be important, if there's a reason that something uncommon needs to happen in a debate (someone needs to take a break due to stress/anxiety/fatigue, there needs to be an accommodation, you or someone else can't debate against another debater or in front of another judge, etc.) please let me know BEFORE THE DEBATE and don't bring it up as a theory argument (unless the other team did something warranting it during the debate). I find it is best to deal with community based issues not through a competitive lens, but through a community consensus and mindfulness model. Be advised, I take issues like this very seriously, so if you bring up something like this in the debate I will decide the outcome of the debate on this point and nothing else. Legitimate reasons are fine and important, but trying to 'game' the system with these kinds of 'ethics' violations will end very poorly for everyone involved.

Hi! I was a debater for Saint Paul Central and currently coach Murray's team. You may also see me floating around MDAW and UDL tournaments.

I always try to have fidgets and earplugs/other sensory aids on me. Whether you're in my round or not, you're always welcome to ask. If you need any accommodations please talk to me before the round.

They/she. Use the right pronouns for everyone in the round or you'll lose speaker points and I'll talk to your coach. Same goes for sexism, racism, ableism, and any form of bigotry.

I do my best to be neutral, but any real life impacts are far more important. Debate should be fun, educational and inclusive.

I'm open to all types of arguments, so run what you want to. I have the most experience with standard policy affs and kritiks on neg. That being said, don't assume I know your literature. I usually don't.

**

Middle School Debaters

I'm a coach before I'm a judge. My goal is for you to learn as much as possible and enjoy debate. If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to help (as long as it isn't unfair). Read the plan, I really don't want to judge rounds without them.

**

Online debate/Tech

I've been on both sides of quite a few online debates now, and they're messy. I'll wait for tech issues, and will not judge the round or your speaks on video quality, microphone quality etc. Don't exploit this.

tech--x------------------truth

Email: lilyteskedebate@gmail.com

At the time of writing this, I anticipate judging middle school rounds. So, if you’re reading my paradigm, congrats!! Keep up the habit of reading judge paradigms before rounds.

For affs:

I need a whole advantage in the 1AC. That means a uniqueness card, cards that describe your impact and how that happens, and a solvency card. Also, a plan text.

2AC - 2ACs are hard! If you have some of your case in this speech, and you respond to the negative, I’m happy. Talk to me if you want a run down on proper 2ACs.

1AR - also hard!! Mostly I want you to continue the story of your advantage. Respond to the negatives claims best you can.

2AR - tell me why you won the debate. Summarize what you’ve said, and what the neg said, and why the neg is wrong. Why am I voting for you? Why do I want to pass the plan?

For negs:

I need a whole disadvantage if you want to do offense. That means uniqueness, link, internal link (if applicable) and an impact. I love case defense and solvency deficits! Point out an analytical reason why the plan would be a bad idea + tell me why it wouldn’t work anyways, and I’ll vote on presumption.

2NC - keep up your offense if you chose to read offense. Respond to the aff. SPLIT THE BLOCK!! Hard skill in middle school, but basically, the 1NR shouldn’t be saying the same stuff as you. For example: if you read DA + CP, 2NC is the DA and 1NR is the CP.

1NR - do not repeat your partner.

2NR - same as 2AR but for neg. Why did you win? Why don’t I want this plan to pass?

Hopefully this is all common sense, but middle school is the wild west of debate. Otherwise, be respectful in round and during CX. If you make debate related jokes you get brownie points. Feel free to ask questions after the round about my decision.

OH AND IF YOU FLOW ALL/MOST OF THE ROUND YOU GET AN EXTRA SPEAKER POINT❤️

he/him

General

I am in my third year debating at South High school, I love debate and want to be a part of it as much as I can!

Judging

If you are a middle school debater who sees this - good job! If you refer to me as "Egyptian Diplomat Andrew Slides" in a speech I will laugh and bump your speaks +1.

I am pretty chill with whatever since these aren't super complicated debates. Just be nice to each other and try to have a good time.

However, if you do some of the following you will have a much higher chance of winning in front of me (especially since middle schoolers don't read paradigms). If some of these seem very obvious to you, you're in a good spot.

GENERAL

• directly respond to the other teams arguments ("they say this, I say this")

• refer to me when speaking; you aren't talking to the other team, you're talking to me

• make analytical arguments instead of just reading evidence; this is obviously the case for rebuttals but goes for all speeches except the 1ac and maybe the 1nc. Evidence is important, but making smart arguments that pick apart the other team's positions will make you go far

• FLOW - it's so obvious when people aren't flowing since they just read stuff without taking into account the other team's errors. If the other team drops an argument you made, POINT THAT OUT. If the aff drops the DA in the 2ac or 1ar, you're almost definitely going to win the debate. However, if you say nothing and the aff brings it up in the 2ar, I'm gonna be begrudging to do that work for you.

• use all of your speech time and all of your prep time

• SOUND CONFIDENT - let's be real, do any of us know what we're talking about? Not really, especially someone like me who's relying on you to educate me on the debate subject matter. If you sound like you know what you're talking about, you probably do, how am I supposed to know?

• start your 2ar's and 2nr's by saying something like "vote [aff or neg] on [whatever argument you're winning on]". So if you're winning on the DA, say "vote negative on the DA that outweighs case".

IF YOU WANT REALLY HIGH SPEAKER POINTS

I give speaker points with discretion; 18-20 range is reserved for those who impressed the hell out of me and need to be debating in high school ASAP

• choose the best arguments you've made and explain them in the rebuttals instead of just extending everything or responding to what the other team said. Who cares if they've won an impact to the DA if there isn't a link? This is along the lines of pointing out errors in the other team, but just because they didn't drop an argument doesn't mean their response is good. Remember, you only need to win like 1 or 2 things to win the debate, so pick those and explain them to me.

• implicate arguments - ok, you've won no link on the DA, now what? Obviously I know what it means and will vote aff on it, but if you say something like "they don't have a link to the DA, this means we can pass the plan with no consequences while solving our impacts. so even if they're 100% right about their impact, you still vote aff", now I know exactly what my decision is going to be, because you just told me.