Stinson,+Chris

__**Name: Chris Stinson**__ __**Affiliation: Minneapolis South**__ __**Pronouns: he/him/his**__


 * My Background:**

I debated in High School for Rapid City Central in South Dakota in the late 90s I debated in College for Concordia in Moorhead Minnesota in the early 2000s I started coaching in college and have actively coached ever since I judge more than 50 rounds on any given topic


 * What you need to know:**

I’m trying to be fully present in debates. When I was younger I allowed myself to be distracted by how my teams were doing, social media, etc. I don't think that's fair for you so I'm doing my best to break my bad habits.

I will try to judge the round without inserting my personal biases. Again, I want to be fair and honor the work that you've put into the activity.

I’m trying to keep up with point inflation. I know a lot of coaches my age are trying to hold the line. I don't think that's fair to you. My scale is at the bottom.

I think that for most debates that should be enough. Of course, you’re not doing your prefs for the easy debates. Below are some additional things that you should know about me in close debates.


 * My (self reported) bias:**

I'm very liberal in real life. I've made my living fighting, full time, for racial, economic, and queer justice. I identify as gay. Capitalism, racism, patriarchy (including hetero and cis patriarchy), agism, ablism, and christian hegemony form an interlocking system of oppression that benefits very few, the primary feature of which is it's ability to divide us against one another. Most people would describe me as a K judge.

I also believe the state can be reformed and that those reforms can be transformational. I had the great honor to work on campaigns to win the freedom to marry, combat bullying, and allow transgender high school students to participate in school activities as their full authentic selves. I cried tears of joy when those policies were implemented. The Paul Wellstone quote, "politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of people's lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice," pretty much sums up why I do politics.

I'm the education lobbyist for a lefty labor union (SEIU) in Minnesota.


 * What you probably want to know:**

__Comparisons:__ I will give more weight to warrants that were in 2NR and 2AR than to warrants that I only read in evidence after the debate.

__Theory:__ In my default framework I evaluate theory/framework first, followed by discourse followed by traditional policy making impacts. I'm not locked into this framework but "theory is a gateway issue" and "discourse shapes reality" seem true so that's where I start.

__Evidence:__ I read less than I used to and a lot less than other judges but I still want to be on the email chain.

__Prep:__ Don't steal it. Prep time ends when you save the speech doc. I also expect your partner to stop prepping. I have no interest in policing your bathroom behavior.

__Perm Double Bind / Perm All Other Instances:__ I have not yet heard a debater explain these arguments in a way that is persuasive to me. "Do the Plan and the non competitive parts of the Alt" doesn't make sense to me as a test of competition, since it simply asserts that there are parts of the Alt that don't compete with the Plan. If you want me to evaluate the perms as an advocacy that I can vote for at the end of the debate I will need you to invest time describing the world of the perm.

Bad debates are always bad so do what you like, what you're good at, and have fun.

I'm happy to answer more specific questions. Just ask.

__The scale I intend to use [|(lifted from jonahfeldman on the CEDA forums]):__ 29.5 - 30: One of the greatest debate speeches I have ever seen 29 - 29.4: Should be one of the top 5 speakers at the tournament 28.7- 28.9: Should be one of the top 15 speakers, but not top 5. 28.4 - 28.6: Should be in the top 25 speakers. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at octos. 28 - 28.3: Good, but needs improvement. Should not get a speaker award. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at doubles 27.5 - 27.9: Some things that were good, but also some areas of major improvement needed. 27 - 27.4: Areas of major improvement needed Below 27: Was offensive/rude/dangerous. Needs to be told after the round what they did that caused a large drop in speaker points.