tahir.ahsan0@gmail.com

Debate Bio

LD debater in MN (2012-2016)

Irregular LD Judge (2018-present)

Comfort with non-stock material

If you've sought out my paradigm, this is probably the relevant material for you. As a general note, it's been 5 years since I last encountered the following with any regularity.

Theory: I'll accept it in relevant applications. Unless there is an extreme case, I default to drop the argument when accepting the theory shell.

Kritiks: I'm not entirely opposed to kritiks, but if they are lacking a strong connection to the opposing case and/or come across as something being read regardless of what your opponent brings to the round, they won't mean much to me.

With both theory shells and kritiks, I do not look favorably to instances where these are used merely to create timesinks in the opponent's next speech.

Preferences

Don't misgender your opponent when their pronouns have been provided (seriously, this happens about once a tournament and the most common reason I decrease speaker points). Better yet, just refer to them as "the Aff" or "the Neg."

I am fine with most speed. Please do keep in mind that remote debating conditions may change this. Slow down for tags, sources/authors, and key elements. Arguments that rely on your opponent missing them are not good arguments.

Always roadmap before your speech. I will ask for one before rebuttal starts if it isn't provided. It doesn't have to be a "quick roadmap" either as long as you aren't making arguments during it. The more specific you are the better; it's fine to deviate from the roadmap due to time constraints during the actual speech. Note that you should still be signposting your arguments in the speech.

Flex prep is allowed.

Unless the difference between the values is significant, don't spend time on them. I've spent too many hours hearing meaningless value debates.

Unless the standard/criterion has been conceded (or very one-sided), you'll be much more likely to get my ballot by connecting your impacts into both frameworks.

I won't make your extensions for you. Refuting your opponents argument does not constitute an extension. They are separate. A good extension will be able to inform a late audience member on a round's key argument and it's importance in framework(s) while staying concise.

Weigh the arguments. You should be telling me why your impacts should win you the round even if I didn't buy your rebuttals against the opposing impacts.

Speaker Points

I average 28 on the 30 point scale. Speaks will be lowered as a result of any condescension, bigotry, or over aggressiveness.

Updated September 2024: Realistically I'm exclusively judging locally and mostly novice debate, so 95% of this isn't useful for you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Disclosure: I don't like disclosure theory. I don't like disclosure. If you're in a round with me as a judge, I'm not going to be particularly receptive to arguments about required disclosure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Big Questions 2024

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

Sections/State 2024 Updates

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

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

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

General Info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

T

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

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

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

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Non-negotiables

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

Traditional LD Paradigm

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

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!

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program. And now I'm in my 10th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you and Good luck!!

Hello there.

Who am I?

My name is Grace Geertsema. I am a 24 year old caucasian female from Lakeville, MN who uses she/her/hers pronouns. I graduated from Lakeville South High School having debated LD for 4 years, competed for 2 years in POI and Poetry in speech, and performed in theatre, choir, and band. Additionally, I graduated from the University of Minnesota- Twin Cities with a double major in English and Theatre Arts. I have a strong passion for performance, comedy, reading, and writing. I don't feel it necessary to disclose my political preferences here but will gladly do so if asked, despite my great efforts to never let it affect any debate or performance I participate in and/or judge. I have previously judged novice LD rounds years ago. As of 10/5/24, this will be my first time back as a judge in a few years. Keep in mind that I may be a little rusty and this material may be brand new to me, but give me the best of what you've got and I'll keep up. My hearing can not be great at times, so please do your best to speak up and you can never be too loud!!!! (unless you are and I get scared and politely tell you to not do that)

Speaks??? aka Speaker Points??? aka A Very Arbitrary Rating System???

• Sometimes can be solely based on ~vibes~
• Feels like the cherry on top that can make or break your final ranking
• Will reward for pre/post round hand shake
• Will reward for respect (manners, offering to share case/info, thanking judge & opponent, etc.)
• Will reward for clear, concise, and confident speaking (disabilities/stutters will NOT impact score)
• Will dock points for slandering opponent, bullying them during CX, belittling them
• Will dock points for missing round, being grossly late, etc.
• Will dock points for ignoring "Clear please", "Louder please" or "Slow please" signals
• You can spread. I can't. And if your opponent can't keep up, neither can I, and I probably won't catch enough of what you're saying to give you a win. Sorry. Good job though.
• I don't mind swearing but DO NOT do it while the clock is running or in a negative/hurtful way
• Also, I allow spectators in the room as long as they are quiet, respectful, within my line of sight, and both debaters consent to their presence!

How Will I Judge The Round?

By deciding a winner. And other stuff. If this tournament allows for disclosing post round, I will first ask if both debaters consent to me disclosing the winner/loser. I will then state the winner of the round, why I decided that way, my understanding of the cases/round, and notes on performance and critiques for future performances. I won't be disclosing speaker points, sorry but thems the brakes.

If you disregard the resolution and/or shift the entirety of the round as to why we shouldn't be debating this resolution, I will listen to you. But if your opponent addresses your anti-resolution stance and additionally presents their case within the realm of the established resolution as planned, they are probably going to win.

I have been personally victimized by value-focused debates, and you may be entitled to financial compensation if you have too. Values can beef up your crystallization and voting points and they can be a great foundation in novice LD, but no need to dwell on them. You can say it once up top to set a tone, but I do not want to decide a round over a value debate. Justice. Right to jail. Quality of life. Jail. Utilitarianism. You guessed it, jail.

A good theory shell moment is intriguing and complex, but it must be done right. And if you're confused, I'm confused. Also, extend those contentions, turn those cards, utilize that slang, but there's a decent chance I won't penalize you for not doing so IF your original argument is strong enough and remained at the center of the debate.

Encouraged/Discouraged Practices (Judge Certification Training Statement)

I discourage lack of respect towards opponents, that may include using theory or meta-arguments to attack one's person rather than their presented case, displaying unprompted attitude or laziness, or lacking compassion and empathy towards one another. I encourage self assurance, professionalism, effort, and human connection. I also encourage humor, risk, manners, educational moments, intellectual challenges, and talent. Life is hard, debate is hard, but kindness is easy.

TLDR: Take care of your mental health, drink water, and be proud of the work you've done. You've already won just by showing up to face today's challenges ❤️❤️❤️

Feel free to contact me at gracegeertsema@gmail.com with any questions, comments, concerns, or compliments!

Hello, i'm Ezana (He/Him)! I'm a Junior at Lakeville South & I mainly compete in LD (national circuit & local). i've gotten 2 TOC bids so far & finaled stanford last year + cochamped Dowling. your varsity LDers might know me so tell em I said hi :)

Rosemount Invitational--

don't call me judge ill probs cringe really hard, call me Ezana pls

• for novices, this is most if not all of you guys' second debate tournament ever-- which means that my threshold for voting off of nebulous warrants/bad 2a crystallization is quite lax.

• that being said--please please please do your best to extend your impacts, especially in your final speech-- I've found that an easy way to do this without freezing up is to map out what arguments i know i'm winning coming out of the 1ar/1nr, and extending those at the top of the speech as a sort of overview.

• There is very little chance you will read at a speed that I cannot process, or read a type of argument I have not engaged with before-- which means im not dogmatic towards any type of argument you may choose to read in round or the speed in which you read them; HOWEVER- do not read fast if you don't know how to read fast just because I am judging you. debate is a speech activity first and foremost and if you outpace yourself & become unintelligible your speaks will suffer.

• I default truthtesting at locals so if you're aff ur burden of proof is to prove that the res is true & if you're neg do the opposite.

As I said, ur all novices so I wont be harsh on speaker points, unless u do something morally abhorrent/something I don't like (outlined in the bad speaks section). expect the range to be 28.5-30

Things that’ll boost your speaks:

a) define the 3 pillars of social death at the start of your 1ac/nc

b) Include a frank ocean reference (seamlessly) in your final speech

c) send photographic evidence of you thanking your coach/coaches for the time & effort they put in every week to make you a better debater (email is ezanahaile08@gmail.com)

d) sitting down early if you know you are CLEARLY (as in, there is genuinely zero potential for my ballot to go in favor of ur opponent) winning, instead of using up 6 minutes of the 2nr to beat a dead horse

e) be black

ways to activate my noradrenaline balkan rage sigma mode (aka bad speaks):

a) start every cx response with "right, so, we'd say..."

b) be mean in any capacity to your opponent during/after the round (this is not to say be aggressive in cross--puhlease be aggressive in cross, but don't be a jerk about it.)

c) docbotting (I actually hate this so much bruh pls dont read off a 2nr extension doc for 6 minutes it reminds me of a very specific group of debaters on the national circuit I very much dislike & it won't reflect positively on ur RFD)

okie bye :D

I am a first year judge. I highly respect well-prepared, well-versed, logical and confident speakers.

Thank you for working with me.

HI! My name is Sofia Ishal I am an LD/WSD coach at Apple Valley and I did LD debate throughout HS. :)

I am now a sophomore at the University of Minnesota studying philosophy and sociology of law. I consider myself a lay-leaning judge but key technical aspects of debate matter to me.

Most of my debate influence/knowledge has come from my HS coaches: Nick Smith, Cori Roberts, Alharith Dahmeh, Amadea Datel, and Jacob Nails ( Influence in this order) I agree with most of their paradigms so take a look at theirs if you have time :)

I have Judged roughly 85 rounds ranging from Novice, JV, and Varsity LD, four rounds of PF, and four rounds of World Schools Debate I have also coached Worlds Schools.

TLDR; Be a good person, clash matters a ton, extend extend extends PLEASE and tech> truth although I think both have a place in debate.

JV/VARSITY LD:

I know a good amount about circuit arguments CPs, K's, spec, theory, etc. just do a clear job extending it and explaining why I should vote on it. with that being said I do not want to see circuit behavior during local tournaments. I am okay with speed, but anything faster than fast conversation may get lost in my flow. make sure that you are not sacrificing clarity for speed because that will not bode well with me. make sure you also lean into the persuasiveness of LD. A persuasive and big-picture 2AR or 2N will do more work to get my ballot than an overly techy 1AR. I have a very good understanding of basic and complicated Phil frameworks just once again make sure you are A explaining it and B extending it and we won't have any issues.

I won't vote on anything that is not on my flow and I am very unpersuaded by "vote after X speech" args so do not run those in front of me. Also, args about abusive behavior in rounds will just result in me going to tab so if there is something genuinely happening in the round making it unsafe for either competitor don't make it a 1AR arg just tell me and we can go from there.

Do not assume that I will catch everything on my speech doc if you decide to spread it. If there is an email chain, add me: Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

NOVICE LD:

at this level of debate focusing on improving your basic argumentation skills and effective communication techniques is the most important thing IMO, you should be genuinely trying to expand your knowledge and just work towards becoming better and I hope I can help you along the way. If you do run anything circuit as a novice (theory, counter plans, kritics, etc.) and your opponent very clearly cannot interact with it due to lack of knowledge, I won't vote on it. and even if your opponent can interact with it, I won't be happy, And it will lead to very low speaker points. I will always give a ton of feedback in novice rounds when asked for and will give a thoroughly written RFD

For both:

You guys should time yourself, but I will also keep time; if you go over, I will let you finish your sentence but will cut you off if you start making new points.

I'll usually start speaks around 27 and move up based on how the round goes :)

PF:

I have judged four rounds of PF LOL and have a semi-ok(emphasis on semi) grasp on how to evaluate a PF round, same attitude towards tricks and K's I was not a circuit debater... like at all so run any of these at your own risk :)

WSD:

I have coached WSD teams at high-level tournaments so I am very familiar with most aspects of the activity. From what I noticed WSD tends to avoid a clash, pls pls pls have a clash, it'll make me so happy :). I will knock during the first and last minute to signify protected time. Makes the extensions of previous arguments clear in rebuttal speeches and stray away from talking fast.

BQ

I did some BQ in high school but not a ton( and not a lot competitively) however having done and coached LD I am apt enough to judge BQ. My big thing is please have a clash and explain clearly link level arguments. In BQ definitions are going to determine a lot in the rounds so make sure you have clear and extended definitions and you should be good.

Disclosure:

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it, and I will write extensive comments on ballots.

Especially if I disclose, but in all cases, please ask me questions, but stray away from extensive post-rounding(In the case that I disclose), if there is anything I can do to make it make more sense to you, I am happy to do so. please feel free to email me: at Sofiaishal2006@gmail.com.

please be respectful to your opponent and stay away from racist, homophobic xenophobic, etc remarks; these will lead you to be dropped!!! Being rude is never acceptable EVER I have and will tank speaks.

I love judging laid-back rounds where the competitors are having fun and are friendly with each other so try to strive for this! debate before anything else is an activity meant to be enjoyed!!

Mark Kivimaki -- he/him -- Coach at Edina HS (LD, speech), Isidore Newman (LD) and University of Minnesota (policy)

**If I'm judging you at a local/traditional LD tournament, most of this paradigm will be irrelevant for you, as it is geared towards college policy debates. Scroll down to the traditional LD section for my thoughts.**

How I judge debates:

1] Impartiality. I don't enter the round as a blank slate, because you can assume I have basic background knowledge about the topic and the general controversies of debate theory, but I will do my best to abide by the flow and not import my own predispositions into my evaluation of the debate. I certainly have a lot of opinions on debate, but I will try my best to check them at the door and evaluate the debate through the concepts deployed in-round by the debaters. This means that your final rebuttals should center around establishing a win condition and explaining why you meet it. Some things that might be relevant: I was a K debater in college, and I never read an AFF that defended a plan. Now, I am mostly coaching policy teams. The sole exception is that I will intervene in debates if any debater is behaving in a way that is hazardous to others in the room*.

*Caveat: I am not a good judge for arguments about "safety" deployed in a casual or trivializing manner. In-round safety means something, and making arguments like "new AFFs make debate unsafe" cheapens the meaning of that word. The same goes for "content warning theory", which I find is often deployed to shut down important conversations. I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary.

2] Communication. I prefer to judge teams that prioritize effective communication. This is far more important to me than the content of the arguments you advance or the style in which you debate. Essential features of effective communication in debate include numbering arguments and answering arguments on the line-by-line in the order presented. Some notes:

A] PSA: I am done with debaters not flowing. Flowing is debate 101. If you ask more than one "flow clarification" question in a way that indicates you were not flowing your opponent's speech, do not expect speaker points higher than a 27.5. If your opponent asks a flow clarification question, you may simply tell them they should have flowed.

B] Clarity. The state of it is atrocious. I will not pretend to understand you if you are unclear. I tend to give pretty strong non-verbals and you should be able to tell if I am not flowing you. I have also started to follow along in the doc during the constructives to check for clipping, but of course that is not a substitute for clear delivery. If you are so unclear that I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I will clear you twice, and then I will vote against you for clipping.

I will not vote on an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or the opposing team's character.

If you are symptomatic with any kind of respiratory illness, I'd strongly prefer that you wear a mask during the debate. Nobody wants to get sick just from going to a tournament, it's common courtesy.

College Policy:

Everything listed here is a bias that can be easily reversed with technical debating, but these are the priors I am walking into your debate with.

Zero-risk is real, because at some point the signal can't be distinguished from noise. That being said, pushes on presumption should ideally set up a threshold that the AFF doesn't meet, because the try-or-die 2AR can be very persuasive to me.

Not a member of the cult of "extinction first". I think there are pretty excellent critiques of this logic from both kritikal literature bases and risk-analysis ideas, but most teams just let it slide.

Theory: My biases are that conditionality is good and that most of the things we call "process CPs" are not competitive when debated equally, but that's up to you to decide in the debate (and often AFFs fail to execute). Left to my own devices, I will judge kick counterplans, and the 2AR is too late to start instructing me otherwise.

Ks: Framework is where I start my evaluation of the round. You should be explicit about what your interp means for the debate if you win it. More of these debates should be disaggregated into questions like "what is the legitimate scope of alternative fiat", "what is a sufficient condition for rejoining the AFF", etc. AFF teams defending a plan should read more cards about their AFF and less generic K blocks.

T-USFG: Fairness is fine, clash makes less sense unless you do a good job of explaining an external impact. 2NRs would be well-served explaining case. For AFF teams, I would much rather that you advance a counter-interpretation of some sort. Clear judge instruction is essential in these debates. These rounds are often really stale and just feature teams reading their blocks at each other without listening to the arguments the other team is making, so if you're doing clear impact comparison, robust internal link work, etc. you're in a great spot.

National Circuit LD:

If you are not willing to give me pen time between short analytic arguments, strike me.

Flow. You must use CX time or prep time to ask questions about what cards were read. If you don't do this, I will start your prep time for you and subtract speaker points.

Decent for philosophy arguments. I think a lot of LD debaters struggle to justify utilitarianism and more NEG debaters should take advantage of this. On the other hand, most philosophy cases have absolutely terrible contention level offense, and if you don't think you can execute the framework debate, why not just go for turns?

Theory arguments: I am likely to conclude that rejecting the argument, not the team solves. Reasonability is underutilized. I have voted on "frivolous theory" before, but it needs to be debated technically and cannot rely on tagline extensions.

Tricks: Probably not the best judge for you. I need to be able to explain back the warrant for your argument to be able to vote on it. Sometimes "tricks" arguments meet this threshold, but often they do not.

Traditional Circuit LD:

I can judge whatever you put in front of me. Impact calculus matters a lot. I don't want to see arguments unrelated to the topic--my litmus test is that your argument must prove the resolution true or false. That means unconventional arguments are fine, but non-topical Ks or theory arguments are something I'd rather not see (unless your opponent also prefers to have a national circuit style debate).

I evaluate through the lens of the winning criterion, and then see who is winning the most significant offense back to it.

I will ask you to send me your case when you arrive to the round. It can be emailed to klinkere@district112.org

I will not accept spreading.

I ask that you stand for all speeches. You can sit during during cross.

I will not disclose at the end of the round.

I prioritize a balanced approach, considering both the philosophical underpinnings and the practical implications of arguments. My decisions are guided by clarity, logical coherence, and the debaters' ability to weigh and compare impacts effectively.

• Framework: Establish and clash with values and criteria.
• Argumentation: Present logical, evidence-backed arguments with clear impacts.
• Refutation: Engage directly with opponent's points and defend your own case.
• Weighing: Provide clear, comparative analysis of impacts.

hi!!! I did four years of LD at Lakeville, MN, mainly locals but occasionally circuit. I prefer tech trad stuff, but I'll do my best to evaluate anything besides tricks.

speed is fine, just put me on the chain: katherine.krogstad@gmail.com

questions are more than okay, but postrounding makes me sad :( pls don't do it

have fun, be accessible, and don't be mean. debate is always a game, but as my friend once put it, play in good faith.

I'll try to average a 28ish for speaks, but if you're rude in any way, you get 26 max.

(locals only) if you have good opinions about Formula 1 I'll maybe boost your speaks but the tradeoff is it has to be on the clock :) also a skillful One Direction reference might reflect well on speaks

minor things that annoy me: taking forever to set your timer for speeches, long roadmaps (seriously just say NC/AC if that's what it is), saying the opp dropped/conceded something when we all know they responded, lying in the 2a (ykwim)

1 - LARP/trad :)

2 - most theory. I don't like frivolous shells, but legitimate abuse justifies it. otherwise I default to DtA > DtD, and I'm still not sure how I feel abt disclosure.

≤3 - K/phil (pls explain well, I never ran these and don't know buzzwords)

strike me if you're running tricks. I don't like it and I will probably drop you :)

Pronouns: they/them

Email: logsdonmal@gmail.com

Intro: Hello! I'm a varsity Policy debater, but I have a lot of knowledge and experience with LD debate. I'm not really picky about specific arguments or cases run, just make sure you have fun and aren't being rude to each other. Debate as a whole isn't entirely about winning, but also about the learning experience you gather within it. Make sure you use your rounds as an opportunity to learn something new, and maybe you could make friends with your opponents as well! I've met some of my closest friends at debate tournaments.

General advice:

1. I'm a big fan of impact weighing- make sure you're doing what you can to prove to me how your case outweighs theirs.

2. Make sure you're clear about what side you're speaking on during your speeches, especially to make it easier for your judge and opponents when they're flowing. It can become confusing if you're answering your opponents case, and then extending your own, without a clear indication of when you're switching. Saying "moving on to my opponents case" or "moving onto the aff/neg side of the flow" are very helpful indicators!

3. Make sure you're speaking with enough clarity and volume that everyone is able to hear you well. Speak fast enough to be able to get through your case, but not so fast that it's hard to tell what you're saying.

4. Call out holes in your opponents cases! If they drop a key argument, or concede to one of yours, or don't extend an important impact, use that to your advantage!

5. Please don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

6. Have fun! Debate is so much less about an aff or neg ballot than it is about the experience you gain and the fun that you have. Yes, it feels good to win, but it's also just a fun event in general.

7. Just for fun- I'd be curious to see how someone would be able to work Taylor Swift, Snoopy, or Iced Tea into one of their rebuttal speeches.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

Please add me on the email chain: desereadebates@gmail.com

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

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

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

Hello! I am a (relatively new) parent judge at Minnetonka High School. I don't care about disclosure; you can if you want.

Truth > Tech; I try to match up the evidence stated in your cards with the real world. Tricks & unconventional arguments may not get to me well (I enjoy stock arguments more, at least).

I prefer if you stand up.

By the way, I don't usually disclose the winner after rounds; you'll see the results in tab.

• I am a parent volunteer and new to judging.
• I appreciate clear and slow delivery - if I can't understand you because of your speed, you will not win.
• Please be clear and concise in your final rebuttals so I know your main points and your answers to your opponents arguments.

Please add me to the email chain (sunitha.peram@gmail.com)

Speakers need to be loud, crisp, and clear. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. You need to be clear about what points you are arguing for. Don't use fancy words, and explain arguments in ways that any person would understand.

Weighing in round is important and beneficial to your points. I also love comparison of impacts. Tell me why I should choose your impact over the opponents.

I am a first time LD judge this year, so don't spread your cases. Read clearly and articulate your words.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SIGNPOST AND TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE ON THE FLOW! If I don't know which flow you are on, I won't be able to write down your arguments.

Overall be respectful to your opponents. This is a learning experience for all of us, so have fun, and good luck!

About me: I debated at Aberdeen Central, SD for 2 years the first being my freshman year where I competed in Public Forum and the latter being my senior year debating in Lincoln-Douglas where I was a national qualifier. With that being said, I have a good amount of knowledge in LD and not as much in PF so if you have me in PF I can try and keep up but just be concise on where you want things on the flow and where cards are being used

Speed/Signposting: If I had to put myself on a scale of speed I would say a 6.5/10. I can handle a bit of speed but if you go too fast I will get lost and lose a bunch of things on the flow. In terms of signposting, I am not great at writing down the names of cards but try as hard as I can so please just tell me a little bit about what your card says and make sure you're clear on where it is supposed to be on the flow.

Evidence: I am all for analytical arguments so you do not need a card for every single thing you're saying as long as your argument has rationality behind it. Thus, I am all for chain arguments, as long as the effects you are saying will happen, make sense, and you maintain the warrant behind the cause of the impacts. However, there is a fine line between analytics and nonsense. Make sure that if you are chaining arguments and impacts together, that you have some evidence backing up the impacts in the first place and then you can make your argument.

Prep Time: In general I am all for being lenient with prep time. Meaning that if you want to look at a card as long as it does not take over 10 seconds I will not start running prep time but if it starts taking too long, then yes I will start to run it. So just do not take forever looking at the card and you will be fine!

Voting: I want voters! Please tell me why you won the round and limit it to just a few issues anywhere from 2-4 is okay with me. When you explain your voters do not just say what your voter is and move on, explain what it is, where it has been impactful in the round, and explain why you are winning this issue!

Picky Things: In general I like to just go with the flow of the round but I do think that when you are pulling through evidence please tell me exactly what you are pulling through and why it matters do not just say "Extend Blahblah '23" try to explain what the card says and why it matters. You also do not need to spend forever on this. Just spend a few seconds refreshing me with what it means and why it matters.

LD: I am more of a traditionalist in how I view the round. I do not want Kritiks, this is South Dakota, not the national circuit so please use the traditional value/criterion framework with case impacts. In terms of framework, I am familiar with the basics and a few outliers just from my own experience debating LD as well as the fact that I am a History major with a Philosophy minor so I am familiar with philosophers who are a little out of the box. In general though, if you are running an abstract framework please make sure to explain what this framework is saying, how it is credible, and why I should even care about what this person is saying.

PF: As I said in the first section, I am not well-versed in PF so please take it slow. Do not just throw cards at me and expect me to know where you want me to put them. Just try and be organized in your speech by organizing your arguments and noting where you want me to write them down on the flow.

My name is Alary Schmitt. I did Congressional debate and a variety of different types of speech throughout high school (mainly a variety of interp, but I also did some public address and extemp); now I coach Congressional Debate for Edina High School and judge. I use they/them or he/him pronouns and am nonbinary & transmasculine; I prefer neutral or masculine titles, so Mx. or Mister both are preferred over Miss or Mrs.

General notes: I try to write as many comments as I can, but I often spend more time listening to your speech than I will writing things down. Also, if any comment I give you contradicts the advice your coaches give you, then take your coach's advice before mine.

For judging Congress:

I love good authorships or sponsorships. Please give me a good authorship or sponsorship. I like them more than rebuttals or crystals. Frankly in some ways I think they're harder since you set the tone of the debate. Please please give me a good author or sponsorship speech.

This is a pet peeve but please make eye contact with me/your other judges/your fellow reps. (Preferably your fellow reps/the other judges; I don't actually like making eye contact, I just like knowing that you're looking around instead of staring down at your legal pad/laptop).

PO: I love POs. Presiding officers will get great ranks from me personally. Don't be biased towards your team or your friends (I will notice). If you are good at precedency and recency I will love you forever. Leadership will also get high marks from me (this applies to you even if you're not presiding; I will notice if you're taking charge of docket coordination and it will make me think favorably of you).

Questioning: If you are too long you will get ranked down from me. Please at least let the person you're asking questions ANSWER. That said, the more questions the better and the more I'll like you.

Other things I enjoy and will rank higher: impacts, linking, a good AGD, and signposting.

I competed in policy in high school and in NDT for four years in college. However, my high school years were 1981-85, and my college years were 1985-89. Since that time, I coached national level policy debate from 1992-2007, and then retired for 13 years. From 2020 through 2023 I have been coaching LD for Edina HS. I have also been a labor and employment lawyer (representing employers) since graduating from law school in 1992.

I believe debate is a verbal activity. I will flow your speeches and will yell clear if I cannot understand you. If I yell clear, slow down and ensure that I am tracking your speech. I will not flow based on your speech doc. I will consult the speech doc if there is a dispute about what evidence says.

Given my policy history, my default evaluation is policy in orientation. However, I'm more than willing to evaluate a debate based on a philosophical framework or a kritical/in-round framework. I am not a big fan of tricks debate, as I apply a Toulmin-style evaluation of arguments and expect a claim, data and warrant, and in my experience a lot of tricks debate arguments lack the data and warrant elements of a Toulmin argument. However, I do judge the debate based on the flow, and I've certainly voted on a lot of theory arguments in my time.

I think debate is a wonderful activity and I value everyone's contribution and participation. As a result I will react negatively to any conduct or argumentation that devalues or diminishes debaters. If you're rude, nasty or mean, expect me to reduce your speaker points. If your rudeness or nastiness is related to gender, race or some other protected characteristic, expert me to reduce them a lot.

I love to watch debaters having fun. It's a great activity. Try to enjoy it.

Be Clear. If I can't understand you, it doesn't matter what you've said. That's your responsibility as a debater. I will tell you if I can't understand your rate of speaking. The arguments themselves matter more than the quantity of the arguments in the round. If you are unable to explain your arguments, having more on the flow doesn't help.

Be nice. That's everyone's responsibility. We are a communications activity, as well as a community of people who have different experiences and perspectives. It's important that we all be respectful of each other, regardless of whether we agree with each other's arguments.

Sharing cases/e-mail chains: I do not support this trend. I believe it hurts the development of fundamental skills which are detrimental to the activity and hence to the debaters as participants. You will not be penalized you if decide to share information--that's your choice. However, I will not allow extra time in the debate to exchange information. You can either exchange info before the debate starts, use prep time or speech time but I will not allow additional time off the clock to facilitate exchanges.

Time-keeping: It is one of the jobs of the judge to keep track of speech and prep time. Debaters are free to time their own speeches and prep time but know that the judge is the ultimate determiner of how much prep and speech time is used.

Madelyn Smerillo (she/her)

Minnetonka High School Public Forum Coach and 2017 Graduate
December 2020 Graduate from Gustavus Adolphus College, BA in Political Science and Sociology

I work as a policy professional in energy; evidence will be essential to a winning argument.

Please do not spread.

Theory read in round will not grant you a win. Please do not run kritiks.

Any concerns about discrimination or maltreatment should be addressed prior to or immediately following the round. I am committed to equitable treatment of all debaters.

Hi there debate besties!!! I'm from Eden Prairie.
I've done 3 topics of PF and 7 topics of LD, I haven't done PF in like 4 years. Because of that, I have a stronger preference for LD-esque arguments.

Please stand up when speaking/CX unless we're in like a closet room at Jamboree.

Yay love - Trad, Strong Weighing, Metaweighing, Extinction Impacts, Clear Link Chains, MEW/Util/MSV (LD), Crystallization/Voters

okay yeah - Topicality, Cap K (on neg), Framework Clash, Uncommon or Weird Frameworks (LD; explain well, please)

Umm I MIGHT vote on - Normal (Disclosure) Theory, Extensive Kant, one singular trick, PF framework, Other Neg Ks, IVIs (REALLY good reason)

:(- K Aff, friv theory, pomo, Baudrillard, Tricks/Blippy args

I will vote on well constructed "implausible" extinction events/impacts if you don't attack it with evidence -- not just "this is super unlikely" Tech>truth sorry. If it is such a wild link chain you should be able to clearly deconstruct and delink it.

Also, if any cards/evidence is crucial to deciding the round, I will be asking to see them afterwards (if you don't disclose). Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Also also, I usually buy RVIs, but you still gotta go for it for me to count it.

Pet Peeves

• More than 10 seconds over speech/prep time, conversely, cutting off your opponent when they're like 1.3 seconds over and clearly on their last sentence
• Circuit or spreading in novice, especially if your opponent has no idea what you're talking about
• Typing really loudly in round or making any disruptive noises
• " Judge the opponent clearly doesn't know what they're talking about " or " It's not that hard to understand you just misinterpret my point " or any snippy comments at your opponent during your round... just don't be rude or backhanded.
• If you say they dropped something but they actually didn't I will still flow through their card. So don't.
• Pointing at your opponent during round or being in their personal space, you should be facing the judge.
• POWERTAGGING
• Bigotry racism homophobia ableism etc. etc. (lowk this is not a pet peeve just common sense) conversely, calling your opponent a racist, colonizer, neo-nazi etc. just because you link into a structural violence or inequality impact

Again mostly it's up to you. Please speak clearly and drop cases on an email chain or speechdoc and add me please. Especially if you are spreading.

Hello! I'm from South Dakota and have very little debate experience, however I've watched many rounds. Here are just a few of my preferences:

I'm not super well-integrated into LD so please be clear with your value or points!! Talking about a topic I probably have never heard about and expecting me to know it immediately isn't likely with me. :(

I'm okay with speed as long as you stay clear and concise.

Link your resolution to your case. Make sure you're explaining your case and points to me thoroughly otherwise you'll lose me on the flow.

Don't be mean, it won't convince me that your case is better and it'll only make me doc your speaks.

I do love voters!! They're not absolutely necessary for me in a round, but they're a good wrap-up for me after vigorously flowing.

Most importantly, have fun and good luck!!

Hi! I am Senior 4th year in VLD. I have likely debated against your varsity LDers!

I love signposting so so so so so so so so so much. Sign post!

Good with framework & definition debates. Good with fast paced speaking ONLY if opponent is ok with it.

Have fun & be polite.

Hey, I'm AJ (he/him). I debated in LD for 2.5/3 years in high school, although my focus and passion was always in speech, particularly OO and Info. Because of this, I tend to value traditional debate, I was never too into the circuit-y stuff. My PA speech background leads me to put extra value on framework and weighing over everything else. I'll be closer to your standard lay judge than a true former debate kid judge.

Framework - The most important aspect of the debate. Real world debates require proper framing to get anything out of them. Competitive debate should be no different. Tie your arguments back to framework and we'll all be better off.

Signposting - Please

Speaker Points - Eloquence and clarity matter a lot, it's the OO in me.

Spreading - Never really cared for, but add me to an email chain (ajtabura@gmail.com) if you're going to do that

Tech>Truth

Theory - Fine, but you'll have to explain things to me like I'm clueless (I may be in some cases). I find theory that makes debate inaccessible to other debaters cringe.

Voters - Please

Weighing - Very important

Weird Specific Things:

I work in the public transportation/urban planning world so any argument surrounding infrastructure is +.

Presentation matters to me to a certain extent. Debate is just as much an activity that teaches public speaking skills as it is one that teaches argumentation. Confidence, clarity, and eloquence go a long way for me. Presentation will never single-handedly win you the round, but it will help me better understand your arguments and will earn more speaker points. I give low-point wins begrudgingly.

I have a hard time controlling facial expressions, so don't read into them too much - they can mean anything. Just keep on debating! :)

Overall, make sure you're respectful and mature and we'll all be fine.

Hello!

I am an LD coach at Edina, and competed in South Dakota with a traditional debate background. With that in mind, here are a few of my preferences.

For LD:

You have to win the Value. It doesn't necessarily have to be your FW, but you have to win it in order to win the round. It is your obligation to show the moral obligation of the actor/actors in the resolution through the framework you present. If you drop framework entirely you will make me sad :(

I am okay with speed as long as you are clear.

Your roadmap should be just aff neg and or voters. If it is any longer I will start to get annoyed. On that note, please come into the round preflowed so we can get started right away.

If you are mean, I will vote you down and doc your speaks. This is an educational activity, and being mean prohibits a fun and educational learning environment.

You need to make your link to the resolution clear. I am skeptical about nuke war/ extinction impacts. If you are running something like this you need to really convince me that it is possible.

On the same note, If your impact has nothing to do with the resolution- it won't be weighed in the round.

If you notice that I have stopped flowing in round, there is a good chance that you have lost me on the flow or you are just repeating things.

Please make sure you are sign-posting. I don't want to guess where to put an argument on the flow.

Make writing the ballot super easy for me :)

Good luck, and remember to have fun! If you have any questions- feel free to ask!