Kiernan, (she/her) ☺️

Quick little about me:

• I've been involved in debate in one form or another most of my life, I believe it is such an amazing opportunity and I am so glad you are participating in it!
• I’m a junior at Central High School (class of '26!), and it will be my 3^rd year debating at Central, 6th total.
• I am a coach for Hidden River MS.
• My email is kiernanbaxterkauf@gmail.com if you need it for any reason, I’m always happy to answer questions.

Middle School Judging:

• Middle school debate is for you all to have fun and learn! if you have any questions at any point ask them and I will always try my best to help, debate can be stressful and confusing sometimes and I want as many people as possible to have a good experience, and my job is to facilitate that!! also just like a general rule of thumb, be nice to each other ☺️
• Yes, I am aware MS kids don't really read paradigms--- it's fun to write though!

High School Judging:

• IP-specific: I am a varsity debater on the topic, and I am pretty in-depth on a lot of topic literature. However, please explain your arguments!! I will probably know things like acronyms, etc.
• Please say "counterplan" not "cp" It just doesn't work with my brain. I am serious haha.
• all my middle school stuff applies here, just be nice :)
• The top line is that I am here to watch and judge you all, and whatever you want to run in front of me is perfectly okay. Unless you are running really obscure stuff, you can assume I will know what you are talking about. I am fine with K’s/Kritikal Affirmatives, you need to explain why your performance is important and what that means. I am here to support you all; you do not have to adapt to me.
• speed is fine, I can flow you.
• With that in mind, running racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments is not going to get you far in debates, and you are not going to win this one if that’s the path you choose to go down.
• Everything from the middle school paradigm applies here! Since I am a high school student, I assume that most/all the teams I judge are novices, and I am always here to help! + Final note: Keep in mind that I am a high school student. My opinions may not always be correct, and I am not set in stone on anything, but I know a fair bit about debate, and I am always here to help!!

****TLDR: have fun, be nice, and try your best!****

Hi!

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

2 important things.

1. In a debate round you need to attack the other teams argument, however you can not attack the other team. At the end of the day this is a educational game, and should not be an excuse to be mean. You need to show a basic respect for the topic you are debating about and the people you are debating against.

2. is that I cant vote on an argument I can’t hear, make sure you are projecting your voice!

In a middle school debate round (rookie) if you have won solvency that's like 90% of the battle.For any higher level debate in middle school there is much more wiggle room.

Have fun and keep trying!

Also if you have questions email me @ stringworm15@gmail.com (crazy email ik i made it in 8th grade and its too late now)

She/her - respecting others pronouns is non negotiable

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

Judging -

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

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

Round procedure -

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

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

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

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

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

Presentation/speaks -

I do not flow off the speech docs. Usually I don't even look at them during your speech so try to speak clearly, if I can't understand what you're saying there's less of a chance I will flow it.

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

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

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

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

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

Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

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

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

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

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

Minimize new flows in the block.

Yay direct and explicit clash!!

Tech—O—————Truth

Aff -

I have slightly lower standards for presumption ballots, but mostly comes down to lack of extended warrants. I usually air on the negative side if the aff fails to extend solvency. I prefer to have some case warrants in the 2AR, even superficially.

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

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

CPs -

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

I prefer articulated perms but if the neg drops it I’ll vote on very little.

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

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

DAs -

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

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

Kritiks -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory and topicality -

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

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

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

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

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

Joke args -

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

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

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

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

St. Paul Central '23, Coach at St. Paul Central

Macalester '27

They/Them

For email chains: stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

For questions/comments/concerns (i.e. anything not during a tournament): cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com

Pre Round

--- Yes Card Doc

--- Do Judge Instruction

--- Just read something you feel best running. I'd rather you read something you know how to run that something Im "partial" to badly. This isnt an "auto vote on kaffs", its just a note that I have and will vote on whatever. My job is to judge the debate in front of me, not force you to comply to my whims.

---If your args have TW/CW, let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech. I also just generally am not a good judge for death/sexism/racism/etc. good.

---Go about 10% slower in rebuttals on blocks than you think you should

Prefs

Kritiks---Good for Ks, prefer a higher degree explanation of your theory of power and why your ontology claims matter. Framework args that bracket out K debate entirely in front of me is probably not the smartest but ill vote on it. More specific your link the better. PoMo Ks would benefit from a thesis level overview.

Counterplans---Creative debate=good debate. Top level of the 2rs explanation of the mechanism of the CP will go a long way. Theoretical objections to counterplans exist and I don't have predetermined thoughts about them. Condo can be good or bad, depends on the tech.

Framework---Its prior to the rest of the debate and it will never be a "wash" for me, you need to slow down on this for me personally. Judge instruction for what it means if you win framework is important and I don't want to do that work for you. If its really messy, ill see if there are paths to a ballot that would occur for one side under both frameworks but thats it.

Topicality---Just make sure the 2nr explains the voters for me thats all. i default to a question of models but will evaluate however.

Hi, my name is Elliot (he/him) and I am currently a debater at Central, and coach at Capitol Hill. I have debated for three years, and currently compete in high school varsity. I'm pretty laid back, and I think that debate (especially at the lower levels) should be about having fun, and learning a little along the way.

Middle School Debate

There isn't much to say here, I am simply here to help yall have a good time and get better at debate. As a judge I will evaluate the arguments that you as debaters make in round.

My criteria for a good round is that:

1) The affirmative should read a plan text

2) Both teams should respect each other

and 3) that's about it.

This doesn't mean you can't be assertive with your questions in cx (cross-examination) or your rebuttals, but there is a fine line between being assertive and aggressive. I always try to assume ignorance instead of malice, but just don't like cuss out your opponents.

Novice Debate

Preeeeetty much the same thing as MS, except my familiarity with the packet is probably less. Other then that, yall should be fine, but I'll update this paradigm later, so maybe somethings will come up :/

Head Coach for St. Paul Central(MN) from 2021(water topic)->present

Pronouns are they/she

I would like to be on the email chain @ stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Email for questions/contact @ marshall.d.steele@gmail.com

For 24-25 --- Serving as Program Development Fellow at the MNUDL so judging a little less than past years on local circuit

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

Used to have a much longer paradigm but I'd rather just give some short thoughts on debate and have y'all debate whatever you want. I appreciate good judge instructions and am neutral on most arguments. My fav debates are usually KvK but I'm down for whatever and I always like creative args/stuff I can tell you put a lot of time into making. Will vote on just about anything that isn't you being overtly hostile to your opponents.If you just wanna know my K aff thoughts I will happily vote on em and find those debates very interesting. As a default I wont check speech docs until the end of the round so clarity is your friend on blocks. I am mostly a clash judge but will still consider/would like to see good 2R top level conceptualization of the round. I value technical drops and all that fun clash debate stuff, it's just to say that actual persuasive argumentation and analysis are probably very important.

slow down for dense analytic blocks especially / fw / theory. If you want me to flow every warrant you should probably not be going at the pace and intonation of the body of a card.

Don't have strong preferences about how you refer to me but "Judge" or "marshall" are always good defaults

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

Random Notes

Plan flaws are awesome and under-utilized

Don't insult your opponents

Prep stealing is not epic

how is farm bill still a DA - this was "Unique" when I started debating(I don't actually care if you read farm bill)

A CP without cards for solvency advocates probably doesn't require cards for each solvency indict, doing so is taking the time skew bait

CX is binding

prob ask if you wanna read a spec arg

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

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

Other notes:

I've been in debate for 21 years - have debated, judged, and coached at regional and national tournaments in high school and used to compete for the UofMN in college, now am Program Manager of the MNUDL. I'll do my best to flow, you should do your best to signpost and clearly read tags and cites. I judge about 10-15 national level high school debates a year. I want to be included on the email chain so I can check for clipping and/or whether a team claims they read something they did or didn't, but my flow will reflect what words come out of your mouth, not what words are in your speech doc. If you want an argument on my flow then make sure you are being clear and articulate; speed isn't a problem for me, but being unclear is. I'll let you know if I can't understand you at least 3 times. At that point if you don't adapt it's your problem :) I will do my best to judge debates in a non-biased way and give you a decision/feedback that I would have liked to have had as a debater/coach.

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

Max Ulven

Any/All

Debater: St. Paul Central (2021-2025)

Coach: Capitol Hill Middle School (2023-2025)

centralub.debate@gmail.com

Novices/ Middle Schoolers:

Please have fun, don't be offensive, and try your hardest! I'll be more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, and if its a question along the lines of "what speech comes next", etc, I'll be more than happy to answer it in the moment! The most important thing though is that you should have fun! Nothing about this should matter all that much and I want to help you make sure its not too stressful or competitive and let you focus on community building and learning!

My best [two] pieces of advice/ things that can help you win more debates [this also applies to all other debates actually]

1. Try to do 'line by line' - this means answering your opponents arguments in reference to them, for example saying something like "answering their argument about the link", or "on the perm argument", it will definitely boost your speaks and probably put you in a way better position to win the debate!

2. Try and do impact calc - this just looks like comparing your impacts to your opponents impacts at the end of the round. I'm sure your coaches can give you more advice, but it can look like: "Our impacts about social justice and reforming the police should matter more because you know that's a problem now, whereas their arguments about federalism are silly and not real", or "warming should outweigh economic decline because it guarantees extinction while causing resource shortages that collapse the economy in the meantime". This massively improves your odds of winning because it gives me an explicit reason to vote for you!

Main paradigm thoughts:

Tech over truth.

I'm 17 years old. I don't have the experience, qualifications, or justifications to hold strong argumentative opinions, especially to the point I'd write them down here. As long as your argument isn't offensive or harmful, I'll probably vote on it [and also have ran or at least thought about it/something in its range if that's what you're worried about]! I am constantly bouncing around on wether or not I should write my thoughts on arguments, and if I wanted I could probably write about a mile of things, but I decided not to for now, because those thoughts really shouldn’t be relevant ever, and would all change given technical execution, evidence, and spin.

I care about being a decent human being. I understand if you don't want to like, become besties with the other team you're debating and that's chill! But avoid being directly hostile, mean, or passive-agressive to them---show me you're better based on research and technical execution, not because you're meaner. My favorite judges were always the ones that both were technical, but also made sure everyone was okay/ emphasized inclusivity, and I want to be that person too.

The thought I will share is that there is a weird divide in the national debate community between perceived notions of ‘K’ and ‘Policy’ debaters. I hope that this changes , but until it does here’s what I’ll say: While I primarily went for policy based arguments in high school, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about kritikal arguments, and my coaches and lab leaders (Turner, BK, DKP, Azja, the RKS staff) reinforced that general notion while giving me a lot more nuance and education. Good debaters can go for whatever, and good judges will evaluate whatever. Means I think that the best debates involve a lot of evidence, substance, and nuanced specific narratives, but I can judge anything from a KvK debate to a framework debate to impact turns, DA + Case, and process competition. Fundamentally - do you and I will meet you there. Just explain the implication of winning certain arguments.

Left to my own devices, I'll be likely to always think through things in an Offense-Defense manner and think you need at least some way to solve your offense.

I'm always going to do my best to be kind, engaged, and helpful as your judge - if you have any questions, ask them and if you have any issues with how I judged the debate please tell me - I might disagree with you, but also you may very well be right and I'll probably adjust in the future.

I'm more than comfortable flowing fast debaters, as long as you're clear! I will never be flowing the document - I may check cards during prep/ afterwards, and will shout clear, but I'm not going to use the doc to reconstruct the debate for you - I will check the doc for counterplan, perm, and plan texts only if relevant, and with hesitation - I'll probably be flowing on my laptop, either straight down or lining arguments up depending on the speed / messiness of the debate.

Higher points for people who: act like they want to be here, engage in line by line, do impact calculus, show understanding of the topic [either via original research, good explanations, or other ways], and good strategic cross-examinations.

Lower points for people who: repeatedly assert an argument was ‘dropped’ when it wasn’t, give speeches entirely ignoring any form of line by line debate, hiding ASPEC, and incomprehensible spreading [yes I will warn you, no I won’t be happy].

CX matters to me more than most. I'm going to pay attention to CX - this matters for your ethos and points, but also for the sake of me filling in or choosing to not fill in arguments for you later in the debate. High points will go to teams that can execute well in CX, and EXTREMELY high points to teams that can execute well in CX and use that in the debate to win.

Here's a list of people who have influenced a lot of my thoughts about debate, at least in some way/ form: Kiernan Baxter-Kauf, Cayden Mayer, Katie Baxter-Kauf, Marshall Steele, John Turner, Nick Loew, Azja Butler, DKP, Brandon Kelley, Connelly Cowan, Katie Carpenter, OTT, IGM, Jake Swede, most of the MN/MNUDL debate community.