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

--General--

Pronouns: He, Him, His

Past Experience: I debated Public Forum for 5 years.

I am terrible at doing time signals so please feel welcome to time yourself! If I miss one just know I am likely writing down what you just said.

--PF--

I am pretty strictly a flow judge. If you expect to win an argument on the flow it must be cleanly extended throughout the round. If it's not said in a speech didn't write it down. Rounds for me are won through offense. You have to give me a reason to vote for you rather than giving reasons to not vote for your opponent. I want you to literally spell it out for me why you won by the end. I absolutely HATE having to rely on my own defaults to decide a round.

I really don't care a whole lot what kinds of arguments you wanna run as long as they are not a plan or counterplan. Theory, Kritiks, etc. are cool, fun, and educational. They shouldn't be excluded from this event but they also need to be better tailored to the format. That means if your running an obscure kritik you need to be able and ready to spend 4 minutes clearly explaining your argument. You may not have time for other offense in the constructive. That's the tradeoff and strategy discussion that will happen with your partner and coach. I don't care what you go for so long as I can understand and flow it.

If you have me as your judge, please understand that you likely will not change my opinions on things. That is ok. Do not worry about my personal opinions. Your job in the round, if I am your judge, is not necessarily to convince me that your position is correct but rather it is to convince me why you have won the debate. I will vote against my own personal beliefs if I believe that that side won the debate based off of my flow unless it is particularly egregious (e.g. racism, transphobia, bigotry, etc.).

That being said do not be racist, transphobic, etc. You will lose. If you are intentionally and consistently being problematic, I will stop the round and report the incident to the tournament organizer. Also, do not frivolously claim your opponents are being bigoted. I take these things seriously and do not appreciate such disingenuous rhetorical jabs. If you believe that your opponent's argument or your opponents themselves are genuinely bigoted, then call that out appropriately. If you are unsure how to do so, talk to your coach.

--LD--

*working on it dawg just ask me, but most of the PF stuff is applicable

--CX--

*working on it dawg just ask me, but most of the PF stuff is applicable

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

Debated CX and LD in high school, 2006-2010. Debated CEDA, IPDA, NFA-LD and Parli in college 2011-2015. First year coaching debate in an official capacity. Am still learning the nuances of North Dakota LD and PF.

The cleaner the flow, the cleaner the RFD. Concise signposts and roadmaps will do wonders for making sure your voters end up in their home on the flow and on the ballot. This will also allow me to more easily evaluate where the clash is on the flow, which is where I will likely look first when deciding an RFD.

I'm open to any kinds of arguments including K, theory, and procedurals. It's your debate, so I will do my best to ensure that you can debate how you like to debate, assuming that it is fair and provides educational value to all parties involved.

PF - I like impact calc in the FF. I like link turns and case turns. I like quick, concise cross-application of previous arguments that give just enough time for you to mention the claim and warrant, and just enough time for me to draw a big ol' arrow across my flow. I like not being able to focus on my flow during cross fire because I'm so enthralled by the discourse and depth gained in argumentation from the competitors.

LD - I like depth on the value-criterion debate. I like cross-application of evidence between aff and neg cases. I like evidential analysis rather than making "who writes the better tags" the crux of the debate. I like evidence vs. evidence clash. I like jargon (don't feel the need to change your style for this one. Debate in a way that makes you comfortable with your vernacular).

If you have specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask as we are setting up the round.

Hey there, I'm Nathan Rateau. I'm the Assistant Student Congress and Debate Coach for Fargo South High School. I debated from 7th through 12th grade. I was a state runner-up PF debater and three-time national qualifier in Congress, BQ, and Extemp. I also competed for NDSU's speech and debate team for a year.

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.

Should go without saying in North Dakota, but I like a more traditional style for PF and LD. Don't spread. Absolutely no counterplans (like seriously that's a North Dakota rule). Run a K at your own risk but I can't guarantee that either you or me will understand what you're running.

I also like having a clean flow so signposting is very important to me, it will be very hard for me to weigh arguments that are all over the place.

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

PF Specific:

Have context for your evidence, don't just throw a bunch of data points at me without context.

That being said, quantify your impacts, it will be very hard to weigh arguments in the round without knowing the extent to which something is going to be impactful.

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. V/C is how you frame the whole round and if you lose sight of this, it gets very messy.