I have been coaching and judging LD and PF debate for 10 years. When it comes to speed, I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately and directly address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. In LD I am going to weigh your value and how you uphold it and link it through your case more than the contention level debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

Background:

1. Freshman at Concordia College, Moorhead Minnesota

2. 5 years of Speech and Debate (Congressional Debate, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Radio Broadcasting)

3. Assistant coach at Lakeside Debate

—————————————

General Notes:

Please please please be respectful to your peers. For debate, be engaged within the debate (Flowing is essential!). How you act and conduct yourself in the round is a reflection of you and your school, purposefully being argumentative and blatantly condescending will result in a deduction of your rank. For speech, again be sure you’re engaged—give your full attention to the speaker, just as they will do for you. Practicing your speech, being on your phone (For non-emergency purposes), talking to your neighbors, etc. will also result in a deduction of your rank.

Debate (Congressional Debate):

Speeches MUST be CLEAR from all aspects. Speeches need to have an argument structure (claim, warrant, evidence, impact) in some sort of fashion. It’s necessary to show me how your claim connects to your impact and overall argument. You also need to explain why your evidence matters to your impact(s)—things need to build off of each other. Sign-posting is also necessary, using roadmaps and signposting through vocabulary or phrases tells me we are moving from one concept/idea to the next (I cannot understand your argument if you don’t do this).

Besides speech structure itself, CLASH IS EVERYTHING. If you aren’t the first speaker, you need to acknowledge the speakers that have come before you (Both when you are defending/refuting points). If your speech(es) don’t interact with others in the chamber, I don’t know how to rank your speech–thus your rank will be lower. Please refrain from just name-calling (I.E. naming multiple representatives and telling me their arguments are wrong), merely telling me names without telling me their arguments does not help your case. Failing to properly address previous arguments during your refutations will also result in a lower rank. Tell me what was their argument? How did they justify it? What was their impact? Do they make logical sense? Are there things that they are missing? Answer those questions (to the best of your ability) to create strong refutations and you will do well!

Flow is something that will make or break the round. Flowing it during the round shows me you are engaged and will help the speeches that you give as well. Failing to flow arguments shows me you are not engaged, and will result in a lower rank.

TL;DR:

1. Your speech needs structure;

2. Evidence analysis is necessary.

3. Clash is everything.

4. Don’t just name-call.

5. Always flow your arguments.

Lincoln Douglas

**NEW to LD**

Lincoln Douglas argues morals and philosophical ideas, your arguments should always tie back to that. You need to clearly (And preferably slowly) describe your argument, to do that you also need to clearly signpost as we move from every part of your speeches—without that, I cannot fully understand your argument.A strong delivery will help with arguing philosophical ideas, strong annunciation, steady and consistent tempo, etc. will do that. Remember that I cannot flow your argument without that.

Your rebuttals should tell me not only why your opponent’s philosophical idea is incorrect, but then tie back your arguments to it. It is not strong to merely just rebuttal arguments, but also to secure your own.

Public Forum

**NEW to PF**

Start with a clear and logical constructive, everything flows from that. Be sure that you are explicitly stating your impacts during the round as well, I cannot make conclusions. Evidence is also key, be sure that your evidence helps you build the bridge to your impacts.A strong delivery is key. During rounds always remember to have strong annunciation, steady and consistent tempo, etc. without that I cannot flow your argument.

Speech:

Interpretation:

Interpretation events like POI or humorous each have their specific device(s) that are looked for and judged upon. But generally, this is what I look for:

Does the speaker fit the piece? Is it something that you generally feel comfortable performing, and or understand the content or its themes? How confident do you feel about the performance? And how does that affect the overall piece? Are movements done with ease and smoothly? Are the characters distinct and properly fleshed out? Does the story make sense?

(This is a general way I judge interpretation events, however, I tailor it to each specific event!)

Public Address:

Extemporaneous,

Generally, extemp speaking needs to have a strong thesis and argument structure. If your argument isn’t clear in your thesis, the speech will struggle to answer the question. And vice-versa, if the structure doesn’t follow the thesis then your answer won’t be as strong. Also utilize humor, and complex argumentation—remember your speech needs to also be engaging.

Originally-Written,

Overall for originally written speeches I generally judge on these questions. Is the speech engaging? (Not just humor!) Is the structure/thesis clear? Are the visual aids effective? Are visual aids a crutch? (Remember V.A.’s are supplemental to informative) Does the material make sense? Is persuasion effective?

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.

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

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.

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.