CX/PF:

Teams should make an argument as to why I should vote for them in their final rebuttals. Don't assume I will weigh advantages or disadvantages on my own.

Generally, a good analysis of the cost/benefits of the affirmative plan will win the round. The negative can weaken the affirmative plan through many means.

Solvency-showing the plan would only solve a small part of what it claims goes a long way to reduce the strength of the plan.

Harms-Showing the harms are not as big or not real greatly weakens the affirmative case.

Disadvantages-Showing the plan causes something bad to happen is generally a good reason to reject. Showing a strong link between the plan and the harm caused by the plan is a good way to win the round. The affirmative would wise to weaken the link, and thus the potential harm, if they cannot sever the link completely.

Impact Analysis-Sometimes conceding the impact to a DA but saying the potential harm without the voting for the plan is much, much worse is a way for the affirmative to still win.

Other things:
Topicality: If run with a well argued set of limits I am very likely to vote for topicality. Just make sure you take the time to develop your argument. Your opponent may assume your running topicality as a time-suck, but I am not.

Counter Plans: I will vote for them but frequently don't because a lot of teams have a hard time explaining how I should evaluate them. Please make sure if the negative is committed to the CP and cannot drop it. (Thus, I am waying one plan against the other.) Or, if the negative is not committed to the CP and can drop it. (In this case, be sure to explain how I should use it to vote. I have heard all sorts of crazy explanations on what role a CP plays in a debate round, so please be clear.)

Kritiks: I have voted for them, but many teams just assume I don't need an explanation on why I should vote for the K. I do need one. For this reason, I haven't voted for them too often.

Inherency: I don't think I have ever out right voted on Inherency, but there is a first time for everything; however, the debate on inherency can be used to severely weaken the impact of the case's stated harms and sometimes as evidence that a plan is not topical.

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. I competed for 4 years and have coached at 3 different schools. I started observing debate in 1987. I am also a licensed attorney. Your time starts when you start speaking. And you can time yourselves, but my time controls the round.

I don't have a problem with speed, so long as your diction allows it. I understand philosophy and complex ideas. Delivery is important but I judge based on content first. Sometimes delivery can get in the way of your delivery of ideas. I will write my reasons for decision, of which one in L-D is always who showed me their side of the resolution and that their value is superior. I will use the criterion as the lenses with which to view the round/the measure by which we determine who wins the round.

In public forum, I look for argumentation and coverage of issues. Again that content is most important but delivery will have an impact too.

In both types of debate, I expect all to be professional and not rude to their opponents. I do not like snarky attitude. I expect some amount of evidence to support more than just your claims, but your ideas are the most important. Evidence gives support and credence to your ideas.

I debated PF, LD, and a little bit of policy during my time as a debater in Fargo, North Dakota. I graduated from SDSU with a bachelors in psychology, and am nos getting my masters at NDSU for clinical mental health counseling.

General note: Please do not ask each individual in the round if they are ready. Just ask if anyone in the room is not ready. Please make sure to clearly identify your contentions and subpoints. I want to get your taglines down so I can adequately understand and weigh your arguments. Please time yourself if at all possible! I do not want to have to cut you off. In all speeches and cross-fires / cross-ex’s finish your sentence (not your thought) when the timer hits zero.

LD Debate:

• Impacts, impact, impacts. Why should I care? I am going to vote for the side that outlines a world I would rather live in. Impacts are the most persuasive tool you could utilize.

• All values matter, but why is yours more important in this context and should be focused on in the immediate? Or even better, how can you accomplish both values?

• Criterions do not need to hold moral values itself, rather it’s a lens / means to which you are going to achieve your value.

• Speeches should be organized. Try not to jump around from point to point, attack and defend one point at a time. Make it easy for me to flow and understand.

• If a point goes uncontested, and is pointed out, that is a huge voter.

PF Debate:

• Impacts, impact, impacts. Why should I care? I am going to vote for the side that outlines a world I would rather live in. Impacts are the most persuasive tool you could utilize.

• If you are going to refer to cards of evidence by only the authors name make sure to clearly identify the card and author. As a judge, I prioritize writing down the evidence rather than the source.

• If a point goes uncontested, and is pointed out, that is a huge voter.

• I also enjoy unique arguments, however if it does not make sense to me or I cannot figure it out without someone explaining it to me - it's not going to work.

• Speeches should be organized. Try not to jump around from point to point, attack and defend one point at a time.

• Do not ask "Can I have first question?" It is common place that the first speaker gets first question.

Experience:

I competed in Public Forum from 9th-12th grade, and went to nationals twice for PF, twice for WSD.

General Comments/Preferences:

I value respect above all else. If you are yelling at your opponent(s) or otherwise speaking in a disrespectful manner, then that will reflect in your speaker points.

I don't appreciate spreading. There's a good chance I won't catch everything you say if you're speaking a million words a minute, which will only work to your detriment.

I will never vote on delivery; however, a strong delivery will help me better understand your argument.

PLEASE sign post and speak loudly. I have a hard time following your speech if you don't.

I like a good mix of cards and logic. I strongly believe that some things do not require cards. Whether you use a card or a logical line of reasoning, you need to explain its impact, or it will not be weighed in the round.

I will flow CX. Dominating the conversation will not get you any brownie points.

Public Forum:

I do not buy the "my card is more recent" argument. You need to give me a valid reason why time, or other arbitrary things, matter if you want me to drop your opponent's card.

If you don't link your arguments to the topic, then I will not weigh them. I cannot draw links for you.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have no prior experience in LD, so I appreciate a clear (almost "dummed down") description of your argument, especially if it's more on the philosophical side.

If you drop your value and/or criterion, you will most likely lose the round.

I am a former competitor and long-time speech and theater coach and have assisted with WS debate in our district.

I prefer persuasion over gamesmanship, moderate speed, and a focus on cross-x that is clarified in rebuttal.

I flow, but will not supply the argument for you - it must be made.

Civility is a must.  Subtleties of LD/PF will be lost on me. But intelligent, data-backed claims with a clear warrant will find success.

I have judged LD debate for two years, and I value a coherent argument backed by logical reason. I am not that versed with the tricks necessary to win a debate. I also feel that it is important to note that I value a roadmap and making sure that your contentions are tied back effectively to the position and standing you are advocating for. I flow, but will not supply the argument for you.

I've been around the debate world for about 20 years, competing, coaching and judging, middle school, high school, and college tournaments. I have seen everything and can accommodate your style accordingly. My paradigm is pretty simple: have proper decorum to be respectful of everyone in the room.

Debate should be an educational and communicative activity. I look for debaters that can discuss the topic with intelligence and honesty. Any attempts to play games with my emotions or my sentiments will get very low marks on the ballot. Debate the topic and do so with integrity, this is my expectation.

Brian Geffre

Shanley High School

Fargo ND

Hello, I’ve done speech and debate through all four years of high school, and I now compete in college. I think Speech and Debate is a great tool to initiate meaningful civil discourse, for that reason, it’s imperative that you are respectful during rounds. If you are being unkind to your opponents, your partner or to me, you will get low speaks, and possibly the down in the round.

Speed

I can handle speed but make sure you are still being coherent.

Public Forum

I appreciate well-organized debaters who use effective signposting. I keep a good flow so make sure you point out any drops. You should write the ballot for me in the last two speeches. I truly believe in the idea that anyone should be able to walk into a round and understand what is happening in PF.

Flashing Evidence: I won't take prep, but be quick with it.

LD

I have never debated it before. Most likely, I will not familiar with the topic. I have judged it before and I understand the value, criterion, and the works of LD, but I’m definitely not extremely well versed in it.

You all are incredibly talented, and I’m so excited to watch you. Good Luck and you’ll be great. If you have any questions feel free to ask me during the round or feel free to email me at abiahsg@gmail.com if you have questions after the round.

This is my 13th year coaching competitive debate. I like to hear good debate. I want kids to improve and succeed in this activity. When everyone competes better, the whole activity gets better. You having a good round is my goal. If you are a new debater, this is all you need to know. For the more experienced students, read on.

Updates for 2023 season.

Ask me if you do not understand or want clarity on the below.

I won't vote for positions that are overtly harmful or advocate harm.

I am typically a tech judge, as I would like to not intervene in the round. However...

I will not accept claims that are not warranted. It is not my job to blindly accept your arguments when they are incomplete.

If you run phil arguments, I will accept your interpretation of the phil... to an extent. However, if the phil you are arguing is something way of base or you have a gross misunderstanding, I will not accept it. You should have a basic understanding of what the difference principle or categorical imperative or whatever means that actually resembles it. It's not exactly fair to your opponent that you don't know what you are actually running. It leads to too much confusion for your opponent, and I will simply default to your opponents weighing mechanism, or a standard debate weighing mechanism.

Basically, on a truth to tech scale, put me as a 2 for your phil and a 7 for everything else.

If you are going to run a K and do not have all the elements of a K, do not waste your time. I will exercise my roll of the ballot by voting for the trad debater. (If you do not understand the joke I put in the last sentence, that is your sign a K is a bad idea).

General notes

I vote on my flow, and dictate my decision based on the arguments that I am told to vote on in the round.

Asking what your opponent's evidence is does not win you any favors with me. Unless you have a good reason, something you haven't heard before, questioning the source, evidence violations, I find it detracts from the real value of this activity. Please don't do this unless it is integral to advancing your arguments. To be clear, I totally respect and endorse asking to see your opponent's evidence IF necessary. I do not favor or ever vote for arguments based on "my opponent doesn't have evidence" when my flow shows otherwise.

I like impacts. I like links.

You should articulate your arguments clearly because even if I know the content and literature, I will not do the work of filling in the gaps for you.

I prefer students advance arguments. Arguments can and should evolve.

Please tell me what I should write on my ballot. Good chance if you do, I will write it.

Don't yell at me please. I am a person. Ask yourself, would like me to yell at you for 45 minutes? No, you do not. Make a different choice. I will verbally tell you to knock it off.

I call evidence. Please have evidence in round according to the rules. There is a good chance, especially in D1, I am calling it. It doesn't mean you did something wrong, it most likely means there is something I want to confirm. This specifically comes up when you are paraphrasing your evidence, and your paraphrasing changes to the point it doesn't reflect the initial read. I am just trying to be a good judge for you.

PF debate

I am pretty traditional in my sense of what PF should be and look like. I believe in the concept a lay judge should be able to judge the round.

Just because the summary is 3 minutes, doesn't mean it is a 2nd rebuttal. A summary during that time would be cool.

I vote on offense.

LD debate

I strongly advise carrying your framework with you through the round. It weighs heavily for me in voting. Framework is one of the strongest voting areas for me in LD. If you lose it, I am not sure how you win the ballot. I literally vote on values.

Criterion clash isn't a "thing". Stop trying to make criterion clash happen. You clash values, you argue criterions.

I am well read on popular philosophies used in more traditional circuits of LD debate. I prefer phil. heavy rounds.

I am a recent graduate of Davies High School in North Dakota, I currently attend St. Olaf college. I have been involved with debate since 2017. I competed in PF for one season, then switched over to LD, where I placed at the state tournament all 5 years, was state champion, and nationally qualified twice. I was also the captain of my debate team from my freshman year to my senior year. Basically, I'm very experienced with debate.

Because of my LD experience, I have a good knowledge of "mainstream" philosophers. I was a heavy Kantian debater, so I am very well versed in his philosophy.

Generally, I prefer clarity, explanation, and narratives over dumping evidence or cross applications without any explanation as to why I should cross apply.

The way you speak and present your arguments have a HUGE impact on what information is heard and what is left behind. Don't spread.

Please have voters in your last speech.

I am the parent of a graduated LD debater. I was not involved in debate myself ever, so I only know what my student has told me and what I have seen from the other rounds I have judged.

Please do not speak too fast. I cannot keep up with a super fast pace. Quality of words matter more than quantity of words. If you decide to speak fast, I likely will not get all of your information, which makes it challenging for me to vote for you because I don't know what your arguments are. I will set my pen down if I am confused or if you are talking too fast.

First, what you’re saying is equally as important as how you’re saying it. Please speak with diction and enunciation at a reasonable rate. If I cannot understand you, I will not be able to count your arguments in the round. Debate is a public speaking event, not simply an opportunity to rattle off facts and evidence. Please state your claim and explain how it supports your argument. Be sure to adequately address your opponent’s points while upholding and defending your own case. In LD, address the value clash and use your criterion as a measure of your value; there is no criterion clash. Cross-ex is exclusively for questions, not debating.

Additionally, I expect you to be respectful and kind throughout the round and beyond; I should not see any “attitude” (or hear any talking in PF) while your opponent is speaking or otherwise throughout the round. There’s a difference between passion and aggression, so be mindful of that, too.

Finally, while I appreciate it when you narrow the round down to voters, please don’t tell me what to do. I am the hired judge, so my time is official and begins at your first word. Nothing is “off the clock”. I will judge the round based on the information provided and which debater(s) best uphold their side of the flow.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

LD -

I am a first year LD coach for Central. I did LD for three years in high school. I am more traditional for framework and arguments, but if you decide to run something more applicable to circuit style, I don't care as long as you explain it. Please explain to me why your framework is the way that I should judge the round - I don't just want to hear that your framework is better than your opponent's, I want to hear why your framework is the best way to reach morality as shown specifically through your contentions. I will vote on framework first. I will also vote on the flow, so be careful in dropping arguments. I can handle speed on the flow as long as you are coherent; if I can't understand you, I won't flow it. I sincerely appreciate sign posting, please don't make me guess where I'm supposed to flow an argument. Finally, please weigh things. Tell me why your impact is bigger or why your impact is more pertinent on the timeline.

PF -

I didn't do PF in high school and have only watched a few rounds, so please be conscious that I am less familiar with the structure and the style of arguments in PF. Same thing goes for sign posting, speed, and weighing. If a framework is presented, I will also vote on the contention level through the weighing mechanism I decide to vote on. I will lean towards impact calc in voting in PF, so please explain to me what the impacts are, why they are the most immediate threat, and how your plan actually resolves those issues/reduces the horrendous scary numbers you're presenting. Please be polite, I don't like the fact that both of you get to ask questions in CX but I will be less inclined to listen to you if you are rude to an opponent in CX.

I'm a former high school debater who competed in public forum for 4 yrs and foreign extemp for 3yrs. I'm a 2 time national qualifier, once for student congress and once in FX. In general for all events I can handle some speed but be reasonable. Everyone should be able to understand what is happening and that includes someone who's only seen a couple of speeches or debates. If an event isn't listed below then I've never judged that event or only a handful of times.

Extemp

Please first and foremost answer the question. Having given plenty of these speeches myself, I will know when you're trying to weave your way around the question. After that I look at quality in regards to both the information being presented(quality sources, quotes, etc) as well as how well that info is presented. Much prefer a 5min 30sec quality speech than a 6min 30sec speech of rambling.

Oratory

Competed for a year and a half in oratory so I understand what makes a speech good and bad. Every speech should be on a problem, cause, solution format especially for novice. Makes it easy for you and I to understand. Please oh please don't trauma dump when it doesn't relate in a major way to your speech. Enjoy well crafted jokes throughout a joke to keep me entertained so commit to the joke.

Public Forum

I will be keeping a strict flow and will keep a note of information. As far a dropped contentions or AT's go, tell me if the other side drops a point, otherwise I'm forced to include that evidence. Not afraid to call cards especially on heavily conflicted points. Misconstruing each other speeches will cost you heavily in speaker points and my trust in what you have to say after. Don't flow CX but if something from cross is mentioned in a speech I will include it. Best bet to gain my ballet is in final focus to give me voters. Otherwise I have to assume what points you value higher than others. I prefer voters not to be in the summary speech but if you do go that way ensure you have enough time to get to all points in each others case.

Lincoln Douglas

I know the bare bones of LD debate. Value framework above everything else. That doesn't mean the winner is the final chosen framework, but the person who best matches their contentions to the established framework. If neither side concedes to a framework, I will judge the round off of which framework I feel was argued with more mastery, and applied in a more effective technique towards the topic. If I feel both frameworks are truly tied in the debate, then I'll resort to contention level debate.

Student Congress

Quantity of speeches isn't everything. Try to give as many speeches as you can obviously if you're trying to win but ensure quality coincides with those speeches. Value of questions asked in relation to the topic is taken into account. Best case scenario is you talk about the questions in a way that adds to whatever side you're arguing.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Educational Background:

North Dakota State University (2014-16)- English Education

University of Jamestown (2020-2021) - Masters in Education- Curriculum and Instruction

Relevant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2017-present)- West Fargo Sheyenne High School

Etiquette:

Make sure to be respectful in your round with your opponents and be polite.

Public Forum:

Within a PF debate, I am looking at main claims, evidence, and logic being used to help a side win in PF. Use your evidence to advance your point and clearly show how that advances your side of the resolution. I take a lot into account in rebuttals. Crossfire is important in my eyes, and I want your questions in crossfire to carry over to the connection and clash you make in your rebuttals. That is the time to really show why your side wins the debate based on your use of evidence and clash. Please do not run K's.

Policy:

I look for clear argumentation between the evidence being used and how effectively you are able to attack the opponent's points and strengthen your own. I am much more content with a slower speed. I am used to argumentation and the typical debate style and format of claim/warrant/impact. At the end of the day, I will be picking the side that wins based on their better use of evidence, clash, and argumentation style.

Lincoln-Douglas:

The value/criterion framework is especially important in this debate format. Evidence of course is important in this debate format but really make sure that you are clear about how your value and criterion fit with your contentions (claims) and evidence. It is a moral debate, and I am looking to see how you can make a more reasonable moral argument based on your chosen value/criterion that advance your side of the resolution.

Speed and Delivery:

Make sure not to spread and not to speak quickly. Make sure you are understandable and clear in what you say. Your delivery matters, and if you talk too quickly, I will not understand your logic and position. Your taglines and signposting are especially important because I need to be able to follow your points and your case to help me know why your side should win the round. Make sure your links and voters are clear in the round.

Disclosure:

I am not used to disclosing when the debate is finished as it is not standard practice in North Dakota. At the national tournament, if it is expected or required, I will do it. If it is not required, I will not disclose or answer questions. I will have my thoughts and feedback written in the ballot.

Cross Examination/Crossfire:

Make sure to answer questions and ask for points of clarification politely. Make sure to use this time to help you build your rebuttals. In addition to your cross examination and/or crossfire, the rebuttals are when I really start to look at who is making the better clash and arguments.

Contact: nkurtti@west-fargo.k12.nd.us

I am a first year coach who debated primarily LD and Policy in High School in South Dakota. Debate is an education activity I aim to provide a fair and uplifting experience.

As a judge, here are the primary things I look for:

• Link Work:

  • I look for solid connections between your evidence, warrants, and impacts. Generic impacts without clear links to your arguments or the resolution hold less weight.

• Impact Comparison:

  • I appreciate clear weighing mechanisms. If you do not weigh impacts explicitly, I will evaluate them based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

• Respect and Professionalism:

  • A respectful and courteous tone is expected. Debate is a space for learning and intellectual growth.

• Roadmaps: Please provide a roadmap before starting. It helps me follow your speech more effectively.
• Dropped Arguments: Arguments that go unaddressed will be evaluated as conceded, provided the opposing side flags them.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. Value and Criterion:

   • I prioritize debates that center around a clear value (what we ought to achieve) and a criterion (how we measure or achieve it). These should guide your contentions and impacts. The link between your arguments and the value/criterion must be explicit and coherent.
   • Clash on the value level is highly appreciated; I expect you to address your opponent’s framework.

2. Philosophical Depth:

   • I enjoy rounds where you engage with classic philosophical works or contemporary interpretations that are well-articulated and contextualized. Ground your points in logic, and don’t be afraid to make me think.

3. Clarity over Speed:

   • I judge based on the arguments I can flow. Speak at a pace that ensures clarity. I may call for a card if necessary, but my decision will primarily be based on what was debated in the round, not what’s on your evidence.

Public Forum:

• Clash and Responsiveness:

  • Direct clash and responsive arguments are essential. Engage with your opponents’ case instead of just repeating your points.

• Evidence and Warrants:

  • Provide well-explained evidence. Don’t just cite statistics—explain the “why” and “how” behind your impacts. If there’s an evidence challenge, be prepared to show it during prep or after the round.
  • Quality of evidence matters more than quantity.

• Speaker Roles and Team Dynamics:

  • Each speaker has a specific role. Stick to those and deliver speeches tailored to their purpose (e.g., second rebuttal refuting new arguments, summary consolidating key issues, final focus emphasizing weighing).

Final Notes

• I am tabula rasa (a blank slate) to the best of my ability. My decision will be rooted in the flow and how well you argued, not my personal beliefs or preferences.
• Have fun and give your best effort! Debate is a space to explore complex ideas and grow as a thinker and speaker.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Good luck!

Pronouns: He, Him

Experience: 11-year coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in LD, PF, BQ, and WSD, but minimal experience in CX.

Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments. If I didn't hear it, it can't end up on my flow. You may also want to speak up a tiny bit (especially if masked), as I'm slightly hard-of-hearing.

Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.

The only time my preconceptions will come into play is with topicality/resolution analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.

Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. If you're not clashing on interpretation, don't worry about it. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.

Cross: For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.

Things I like:

- Clear and consistent signposting

- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate

- Clear impacts that stem from Claim-Data-Warrant structures.

- Kritiks/Theory - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear. However, I come from and coach in a very traditional district, so I don't have much experience with judging these types of arguments. Give your best "...for Dummies" version of your kritik if you do go for one.

-Volume. I'm alitttttlehard of hearing, so I appreciate projection.

Things I DO NOT like:

• "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Then never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
• Evidence battles over arbitrary things ("my card is 2020 when theirs is 2017!"). There's a time/place for calling evidence into question, but I need a clear reason why something like a year matters for a particular stat (like, a recently implemented policyshould probably have the most up-to-date info, but I don't need anup-to-the-secondarticle on something John Locke believed back in the primordial ooze).

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

Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round as long as we're not running behind.

-Christian Novak

FLOWING:

If typing, I flow the entire round in the RFD so that teams and coaches can see how the round went. I add my thoughts in italics, so that you can see my reactions to different arguments. I'll put my biggest RFD (and the value clash) at the top of my notes.

DECISION:

1 - Debaters should carefully consider how much evidence they use. Logic can only take you so far on its own. Evidence can only do so much on its own. The two need to balance.

2 - Impacts really matter. Make sure to clearly state your impacts.

PREFERENCES:

1 - Please do not spread. I understand that students do it to fit as much information in as possible, but you risk opponents and judges not being able to track everything you say. A good argument will be about argument quality, not word quantity.

2 - I recognize that I do have a bias against disrespectful debaters. It is very important to me that debaters maintain their composure and professionalism through the entire round. Competitors are future leaders and need to be able to set a good example for those around them.

3 - Meld values into your contentions and come back to that! Please balance the value clash with the contentions. I'll use the wining value to weigh both teams' contentions.

Hey there, I'm Nathan Rateau. I'm a Freshman Math Major at North Dakota State University. I debated from 7th through 12th grade and was a state runner-up PF debater. I also currently compete for NDSU's speech and debate team. I've been in Public Forum Debate for most of my debate career so I am more familiar with PF style and format than I am LD, but I have dabbled in LD before so I'm not completely clueless with it.

General comments:

I like respectful debates. Be kind to your opponents, don't talk over them or yell at them. In my opinion, kindness says a lot about your credibility as a debater, so being kind will be helpful to all of us (especially myself, because quite frankly I don't like shouting matches).

I also like fair and honest debates. Don't falsify evidence, take anything out of context, gaslight your opponents, or just straight up lie. Debate is an activity about finding the truth and lies just get in the way.

I try my best to go into a round with as a blank slate, I will not let my preconceived opinions on a topic get in the way of my judging. That being said, I will buy arguments that are more impactful, so please stress how and why the impact of your argument matters.

Finally, have fun. Debate is a great experience and I'm happy to help you enjoy it as much as you can.

PF Specific:

Not much here really, I will say that I am a numbers guy so I like impacts that I can wrap my head around mathematically. However, if you throw numbers at me with no context associated, they mean nothing to me.

LD:

Debate should be focused on value and criterion and how your contentions achieve this value. If the contention debate strays from the value/criterion debate, I'll have a hard time weighing it in the round.

This is my 10th year coaching competitive debate.

A few things to get out of the way - DO NOT SPREAD. I come from a traditional circuit where it is not the norm. I will not be able to follow you and won't get ANY of it on the flow. If I can't get it on the flow I will not weigh it. I prefer a conversational approach that easily allows me to absorb information. Also, I will not vote for any positions that are overtly harmful or advocate harm.

Please articulate arguments and information clearly. Even if I know the lit, I need you to explicitly outline the links the impacts the significance, etc. It's your goal to convince me why I should prefer what you are saying.

If you need evidence from your opponents or even if you THINK you'll need your opponent to share evidence, please determine in a civil way with your opponent at the beginning of the round how you would each like it to be shared with one another. Let's just avoid the confusion right away.

Experience

6 years of Congress, 5 years of Debate and Speech

Competed at Nationals in Congress / World Schools 2021-2024

I currently compete for UND's speech team

Overall

Prioritize speaking clearly over speaking fast. If I don't know what you said, I can't weigh what you said!

If an argument is very obviously logical, please don't try to counter it by asking for evidence. We don't need a card stating that the sky is blue.

I appreciate pretty speeches, but what I'm ultimately judging is content. If your rebuttal is pretty but lacks substance and your opponent's is messy but substantive, I'll likely prefer your opponent's speech.

If you're disrespectful of your opponent(s) in any manner, there is very little chance I will vote for you.

Voters are great, I recommend giving them.

If you ever have any questions for me or you want more specific feedback about your round, I'm thrilled to talk to you! I love this activity and the people I've met through it!

I don't mind a smidge of unseriousness in a round. Have fun with this activity!

Lincoln-Douglas

I did half of a season of LD in ninth grade!

I appreciate some of the more philosophical arguments presented in LD being laid out for me. Once again, a situation where I can't weigh things I don't understand.

The value clash is probably the most crucial aspect of LD judging for me - I appreciate it when LDers apply their value to each of their contentions, and explain why they are winning the value clash in each of their speeches.

Public Forum

I did three seasons of PF in high school!

I appreciate links being made for me in speeches as arguments are made. If you make an argument in your constructive that fails to be linked to the actual topic of debate until your summary speech, I may spend the entire round misunderstanding your argument.

I will not police card dates. Claiming an opponent’s card is outdated will only work if you can show that the argument made by the card has since expired. If not, the card will still be weighed.