Edstrom,+Tim

tim edstrom Como Park High School experience: 5th year coaching debate at the high school level years judging: 7 TI topic: 25

my favorite novel is "blood meridian" by cormac mccarthy.

jerdges jerdges jerdges. critics are interesting creatures (judges) and i think that at the end of the day, we probably all think we have something to say about debate. maybe we are all just failed debaters grasping onto the activity for that last scrap of judging glory. i hope not that would make for shitty jerdges.

if you tell me to render a decision without telling you about it though, i'll keep my mouth shut.

i debate for the University of Minnesota and coach high school debate in MN for Como Paaa. take that as you will. i spent most of my high school career extending __politics__ __topicality__ and __case debate__.

my first run in college debate at Concordia i thought __plan texts__ were dumb and made fun of language every round. in college debate now i do a little a dis a little of dat emphasis on the lat- but i coach all of my teams across a broad range of argumentation, from __performance__ to far right dedicated __impact turn__ strategies. i like to think that debate is a creative activity, so you should use your mental muscle, also known as your brain which is connected to your face, to make arguments that you think will be effective and hopefully you have put some amount of thought into.

I ALWAYS FLOW WITH A PEN AND PAPER- my hand hurts, i write as fast as i can but there are some logical limitations to my ability (or any judge's's) to write (type) in concert with your spreading lips. with that in mind SLOW DOWN WHEN IT COUNTS. i'm so serious delivery is a lost art form and if you want to get __the 30__ i have never given (seriously never) then you should make an effort to communicate __your tags__, __your citations__ AND __your warrants__. if you ask people i have judged regularly, they will tell you- __i flow warrants.__ but only on the off chance that i understand them. you also need to slow down on the theory debates unless the args you are making really are as blippy and crappy as your blocks make them seem like. in other words, communicating an argument effectively matters in giving it credence. it's not like i will ignore your PICs bad block but if i have like: vague, p txt, tpc ed on my flow for your 2AC block, it's going to make it tough in those later speeches.

__evidence__ is important analyze it tell me why it matters and how it compares. i never called cards, then i called some, now i'm back to mostly none. usually there has to be a challenge or a specific indictment/comparison for me to do so. i prefer the hear the debate as it happens, not reconstruct it past the round.

__specific strategies__ are bomb.

i do not shy away from weighing __analytics__- smart analytics can often go farther than trashy cards.

i guess i am getting more and more into competing interpretations on __theory and t__. it makes sense and is the old school way (but it never hurts to have some of the IR abuse!). i guess what i am saying is careful weighing is in order, but reasonability can be persuasive.

__kritiks__ are good you should __frame your impacts__ in any debate but i think it is more important here. __alt solvency__ is debatable. kritik perms are doubtful- if you win no link that's usually strong.

i will up and say it: i think __100% defense__ or close to it is possible, persuasive, and a reason to vote. is __offense__ important? __yes__, but so is defense. it is still undervalued.

__counterplans and da__- bread and butter. competition is important, functional and textual make sense. net benefits are necessary to win. some of these debates can get complicated on uniqueness levels. it helps you to resolve these issues. additionally, affirmatives should roll with theory sometimes because there is such thing as an illegitimate counterplan.

__case debate__ is most likely the most important thing. it gets you far on both sides. it helps you weigh your other arguments. often times, it is the difference. know your aff and others like it (or not).

i have learned __debate__ from so many engaging and intelligent people, and i am excited to discuss it with you. i will do my best to leave my __predilections__ at the door (which should be closed by the __final rebuttal__), but it is on you to __persuade__ me.

pls ask me __questions!__

__have fun__ __good luck__

OLD PHILOSOPHY-2009

These are my predilections. I can be persuaded to abandon them if that's the kind of debate that I am evaluating. Tell me where you want me to vote. Or, if you don't, I am left to decide for myself.

I have a lot of likes and dislikes, as I am a debate person, but no one type of argument or style automatically earns my ballot. I constantly tell debaters that I judge to do what they are good at. This usually results in the best debates. I have done research in policy and critical areas on the topic, and think that there is all sorts of interesting ground on the aff and neg this year. Politics DAs, PICs, kritiks- name it. I like specific strategies. I like in-depth evidentiary analysis. In fact, I would go so far as to say this is one of the most determining factors in how I vote/how I dole out speaker points.

I will do my best to evaluate topicality and theory as neutrally as possible, although I prefer a clear abuse story and god forbid, impacts. Competing interpretations is the old school way to evaluate T and theory. Quickly spread cheap shots usually result in a rejection of the argument if anything.

I guess I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I am open to the ideas that uniqueness overwhelms the link or that absolute link takeouts exist.

If you are funny, extraordinarily persuasive, clear, or very technical, I'll bump the points.

I still flow with paper and pen. I flow warrants if I can understand them. I feel as though debaters know how relatively clear they are, but if you are extremely muddled, I'll let you know. Slow down on the theory blocks unless you don't want me to vote on them.

Feel free to ask any question about debate. I would love to answer them honestly.