Experience: 

Policy Coach @ Ralston High School

3 years policy debate @ Millard West High School (2007-2010)

State Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

Nebraska North District Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

General: Debate the arguments that you enjoy and debate them well. Speed & tag-team cross-ex are fine.

Argument Preferences:

Affirmative: Engage with the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to be "topical."

Disads: Run good internal links and be able to explain them.

Kritiks: Don't link to your own discourse links, I'm willing to vote you down on perf-con. Author experience with Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Camus. Links of omission are rarely good. 

T/FW: High threshold for developing procedural arguments. I really like them, and happy to vote on them, but both teams need to put in the time to address the nuances of the argument. Won't vote on undeveloped Role-of-the-ballot arguments.

I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

they/them pronouns.

First year policy coach at Millard South, fourth year in debate.

TW/CW's are a must for cases that talk about sexual violence.

If you or your team partakes in/employs individuals that have a history of sexual assault infractions, rape or rape apologism, you will be dropped immediately on principle. No exceptions. Strike me if that's a problem.

Generally a k judge. I don't buy nuclear war/extinction impacts. I will vote for policy affirmatives/disads/counterplans if everything is well articulated and the impacts are extended well. I have no problem with ROB/ROJ arguments, I love performances as long as they aren't used just to win a round. I hate framework and topicality, I think these arguments generally tend to be violent, especially when used against k's.

The only time I'll interject in a round is if something violent/abusive is being said (comments towards other debaters, stealing prep, slurs/exclusive language, etc). I don't care about foul language lol you do you, it isn't my place to police your language. 

Basically just explain your stuff thoroughly. Give me reasons to vote for you. Impacts and links are suuuuUuUuuUuUUper important. Be nice.

- prefer flashing over email chains, I'm fine with tag team cx as long as it isn't against someone who is mav, I'll keep a running clock if my phone isn't dead but it probably is. Will probably need flow paper.

I debated from 2006 to 2009 at Norfolk High School in Nebraska back in the days when policy debaters had to haul tubs full of evidence around everywhere and instead of flashing evidence to our fellow competitors, they'd have to grab the physical copy and read it. I qualified to NFL nationals my senior year but never really competed on any circuits outside of the local one in HS. In college I competed in NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln from 2011-2013.

I currently manage a restaurant, so my life has taken a turn away from debate. That being said, I'm still a huge fan of the activity and consider myself educated on argumentation. I'm very excited to return to judging again.

I want to see a round in which teams run arguments that they feel comfortable, confident or otherwise righteous running. Do what you do well, do what matters to you, and have fun. In-round decorum is important to me: I don't want to see ad hom attacks, rudeness or bullying. Debate only serves its purpose as a quest for a larger overall truth if all participants feel welcome in the activity.

I'm getting older and my hearing isn't what it used to be. Please speak loudly. Please don't go full speed, at least not right away at the beginning of the round. I won't be able to flow it. I'll try, but I can't make any promises. A wise debater would slow down slightly in front of me. I have not judged consistently since 2013.

Honestly, I don't get too hung up on what style of arguments are run. I was once more of a TPD guy, but I've come to realize the revolutionary potential of debate and the importance of young people advocating for issues they care about. I would like to know how what you say relates to the topic. And I'm always down for a good disad/CP/squo debate. Topicality was my bread, butter and dessert as a debater so I enjoy those debates more than most judges but I'm unlikely to vote on T unless it is executed well throughout the round.

I do need crystallization in rebuttals. I want "even if" statements. 2NRs, close those doors. 2ARs, find those cracks and exploit them. Rounds are controlled in the constructive speeches but won (or more often, lost) in rebuttals.

By default I will vote for the team that provides the most persuasive offensive reasons to win my ballot. This is open for interpretation for a reason. Meta-level analysis that tells me how to weigh the round is particularly important. I need to know the purpose. Don't lose your perspective; individual arguments matter, of course, but don't get too bogged down in winning every little thing. Win the big picture. Tell me how and where to vote.

Prep theft/shadow prep. I'll know. You'll know.

Flash drive issues. I understand it happens, but when it happens every prep period I will start to get suspicious. (Do y'all still even flash evidence, or is it all just part of the Cloud now? I'm behind on the tech.)

Overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or other forms of bigotry. As a community we must be better than that. The world sees enough hatred the way it is. Let's make debate a safe academic laboratory of constructive ideas.

**Policy Philosophy**

Small update 12/7/2016

I officially hate T debates on this year's topic, specifically the QPQ/Not QPQ debate. Go for T at your own risk.

The rest Updated 10/28/2015

About me: I’ve been coaching policy since 2008. I was at Omaha-Westside 2008-2012, and Millard North 2012-Present.

The short version: I’ll evaluate the debate the way the debaters tell me to. I don’t think debate should be any one thing. The beauty of policy is that it’s constantly changing to suit the will of the debaters. I care significantly more about the educational outcomes of debate than pure gamesmanship. If you’re debating in a style that you’re passionate about (policy-making included), I’m a good judge for you so long as you can justify what you’re doing. Some of my teams run straight-up policy arguments, others don’t read plans.

The argument biases below aren’t set in stone. I try my best to evaluate the debate according to the arguments made in the round, not my predispositions.

Speed: I can flow whatever speed you toss at me as long as you’re clear. That being said, I’d prefer if you slowed down about 15% so that I have a little more time to process what you’re saying. Frankly, I enjoy debates more that are a little slower—but debates are about the debaters, so don’t pay too much attention to that.

If I can’t understand what you’re saying I’ll tell you to be clear once or twice. After that you're on your own.

Topicality: I'm probably not  the best judge for T if the aff is about a core controversy of the topic. 

I've generally voted neg on topicality in debates where the negative has provided a clear, limiting interpretation of the topic. The aff was in good shape when they gave warrants behind breadth over depth and/or talked about the quality of the ground the differing limits provide (limits should be about the quantity and quality of cases). I default to reasonability if neither side says a word about it, but I defer to the flow and usually end up deciding based on competing interpretations.

Theory: It’s your burden to prove rejecting the argument doesn’t solve your objections. You'll have a tough time convincing me to vote on dropped cheap shots. Limited conditionality, topical CPs, and functional PICs are probably good. Counterplans that include the possibility of doing the entire plan are probably bad.

Kritiks: Do your thing. I’m pretty well informed on most arguments, but you can’t be sure I know your personal favorite. Specificity makes for better debating.

DAs/CPs: Sure, go for it. I’m getting less thrilled by politics debates as time goes on, but I’ll evaluate it fairly. Case-specific PIC/DA combos are probably my favorite strategies.

Framework: Mike Baxter-Kauf says it best: "There are really 2 different arguments that people lump under the tag “framework.” One is a question of how we should think in response to a given question: these are defenses of pragmatism, realism, empiricism, etc. These are legitimate questions which are a focus of any intelligent response to a criticism. The other is “they ran an argument with big words so we should get to not answer it and still win.” I hate this argument ,like whoa, do I hate this argument. Don’t get me wrong, I vote for it, but I hate doing it and the the threshold for rejecting it is pretty low. You are way better off answering the thesis of the argument and defending your approach to whatever the question is (YOUR epistemology, YOUR ontology, etc.)"

No Plan/Alternative Styles: I'm friendly to this when it's not used as a method of avoiding clash. If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, I want to watch you debate. If you try to be shifty and 'no link' out of positions that clearly link to your advocacy, don't be surprised when I give the other team more credibility on their framework arguments. It will also probably hurt your speaker points. That being said, I am increasingly wary of how intellectually limiting traditional interpretations of the resolution are. If you're germane to the topic and present a debatable advocacy, I'm interested in what you have to say.

Other stuff:

When I read evidence after the round, it's generally to get more context for the arguments made in the debate. I won’t give you credit for warrants that weren’t explained in-round.

I definitely value 'spin' over evidence.

I won’t judge-kick a counterplan and evaluate the status quo unless you explicitly make that an argument in the round.

Clipping cards is a serious offense. Get caught and you’ll lose the round with zero speaks.

Short Version;

Run what you want to run. If you're from PF, I judge rounds with a lens of logic and risk evaluation. My paradigm applies to you more if you're from LD or Policy.

I'm okay with traditional and K debate. The ballot deciding journey is based on the argument map of the round -- which argument won here, canceled out there -- and which team has the better position after everything is added up.

*************

Long Version;

**If you choose the strategy of an 8-off blitzkrieg: Most likely expect a word at the end of the round about how that is neither fun nor valuable**

I debated for 3 years at Millard West Highschool. I ran renewable energy affirmatives and my last year I ran a courts affirmative dealing with Terry vs Ohio, that had a K aff counterpart. I love science affirmatives and anything exciting.

I try to be a clean slate, whose only purpose is to understand the arguments made, compute how they interact, and evaluate the big picture of the round. Judge intervention is not ideal, but when it does happen it's because there are gaps in the flow that I have no choice but to fill in order to reach a decision.

I prefer substance over tech -- let that apply to 8 off debates, ultra speed reading, and theory. I will occasionally, on rare occasions, take the liberty to ignore an inconsequential tech if it upholds the integrity of debate substance. If you're serious about condo, it gets a new piece of paper.

Kritiks-- You have to sell your solvency in order to win. If you're claiming to solve for real world harms, you have to anchor your kritik and our debate round in the real world and tell me explicitly why your aff/k is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot.

Framework-- Too many framework debates never make it much further than the shell. Again, same as kritiks, you need to anchor the framework to the real world and talk about the round and why the framework is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot. The aff probably claims to do something in the real world, you need to do something in the real world that outweighs what they do.

T-- I default to reasonability, within reason. The purpose of topicality should ideally stick to making sure the aff is topical. Topicality's best foot forward is impacted out impacts.

DA, CP-- Fairly straight forward. Sell a story, paint a picture.

Case-- I tend to like when debaters give overviews of their case and consistently sell it throughout the round.

LD

I am a proponent of debaters doing what they do best and I am pretty open to hearing anything you want to run, policy debate will do that to you.

Value & Criterion: I find this debate tends to be muddled. The way this debate works for me is impact calculus: who's impact matters more and why. A good way to think about this debate for me as a judge is to tell me why you win under either teams arguments which is aided by having offense against your opponent. I am a policy judge, I think in terms of impacts more than anything else so be sure you explain to my what your impacts are and why they outweigh your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, probability).

I do have some cautions about those running "policy debate arguments" in LD.

Kritiks: I come from a slightly more policymaker background though I ran and competed against K's plenty of times. That background gives me a certain threshold of explanation of a kritik, the alt, the link, that I am comfortable voting on and I have found no matter the debaters ability, there structurally isn't enough time in LD to reach that explanation threshold. I have voted for Ks in LD, but have found myself still adjusting my threshold appropriately for LD. I say this as a caution for those who wish to run K's. Like I said, I've voted on K's in LD, but my threshold is higher than perhaps normal.

Theory: Theory can be good and effective when argued with standards and impacts to the debate round/space. Debaters who read a bunch of theory arguments at the bottom of their case, rattled off one after another, without independent justification for each one, likely will find I won't evaluate those arguments: 1) because of what I said before this and 2) I try to avoid flowing from the speech doc so I may miss one of the theory blips you give so you won't win because of it--even if I consult the speech doc, if need to know you said it and where in order for me to get it to my flow.

Please please please ask me questions if you have them. I put these three aspects of my paradigm here because I know these are The debate space is your space and I want to give you as much information about me as a judge as possible to set you best up for success so do not hesitate to ask. If one team asks a question and the other isn't present, I will make sure each team is aware of what was asked and what my answer is.

PF

As I come from policy I don't have any really strong opinions on what PF should look like.

My one opinion on PF is that the SECOND REBUTTAL needs to address BOTH SIDES of the debate (that means you should attack and defend in this speech), if you do not do this, any arguments you don't address will be considered conceded. It helps to even out the advantage given to the second team by speaking last. I generally prefer the summary to be line-by-line compared to a whole round picture, you won't be punished (speaker points, assumed conceded args).

Mostly for me, don't be idiots in the round (or in general) and we should have a good, fun round.

Also, I do like to make jokes (and by jokes I mean really stupid, unfunny jokes that I find funny) feel free to laugh, or don't laugh, at them, or me, but just a heads up. It surprises some people.

Please ask me any questions you have! I'm always glad to talk about anything debate related or not!

POLICY

Updated 8/6/2015 (Most a copy and paste from original)
Background: Debated for four years at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska and graduated in 2013. I don’t debate in college but am an assistant at Millard West. I go to school at UNL (if you wanted to know).
Spark Notes Version: Debate how you want to. That’s the most important thing. Debate is an educational game. Make sure you facilitate CLASH in the round. Please engage in your opponents arguments. Seriously. The biggest thing is do what you want to in the debate round. It isn't about me.
Speed: I am fine with. I will yell clear if I want you to be clearer.
Flashing Evidence: I will stop prep time when the flash drive is ejected from the computer of the team saving the files to it
Shadow Prepping: DO NOT SHADOW PREP. For clarity—shadow prep is defined as once prep time ends and one of the debaters in the round is still prepping. I will deduct prep time from the appropriate team. It is very annoying to see this trend. Once I see it happen less I will loosen up on this policy but I shouldn’t even have to mention it. Alas, I do.

Specific arguments:
Theory: This is always a difficult one to read the judges based on what they put on the wiki, and as such, theory is rarely run and it is even more rarely gone for. There is also a very simple reason for this: No one invests the time needed on theory to go for it. I love theory debates when they happen, but it kills me when they are done poorly. This is how I would evaluate a good theory debate: A shell can be used the first time it comes up by both sides, that’s fine. Just don’t zip through them. But when it comes time to going for the argument, you need to sit down and answer the shell of your opponent part by part. Just extending your arguments doesn’t work, answer back in full AND extend your arguments. Think of it like a Topicality debate, just extending your standards and voters won’t win you Topicality, the same applies here—you must answer. Do this and you will be in a better position to win theory in front of me. If you aren’t prepared to win a theory debate, don’t go for it—that’s a good rule of thumb for any debate actually.
Topicality: Speaking of Topicality, what would it take for me to vote on T? I loved topicality when I debated. It is such a great argument that has so many different aspects of it; it can be easy to trip up teams. That’s just a little so you know. Just like Theory, you need to answer every aspect of Topicality in order to win topicality, or if you are the affirmative, not lose on topicality. Never just extend the shells that are spewed off in the 1NC and the 2AC, do some in-depth analysis on the all levels. Interpretation is usually a big one to make sure to cover, then of course standards which prove the voters. Bottom-line: Clash on the topicality flow and utilize all of the flow to prove why you win.
Disadvantages: There is a theme in all of this, Clash and engagement. That is important on the disad as well. Also, I love disads. So much fun! Back to what is important to me. Well, all of it. Answer arguments is important, clearly. This should go without saying, but make sure your disads are Unique. This is something that is under-utilized in disad debate—specifics. Such as specific uniqueness evidence to people or pieces of legislation, or economic analysts, etc.
Politics: I love the politics disad and always enjoy seeing it ran. One thing—I hate the rational policy maker argument affs make against the politics disad—don’t do that. I will not vote on it.
Counterplans: I figure at this point I will be just reiterating myself if I talk about clash again, so I won’t. However, when negative you better show how you are competitive. Be warned, textual competition is shaky ground for me, functional competition is almost always a better way to go. That being said, if you love textually competitive counterplans I will listen to them, just be warned if challenged you better have clear and rock solid reasons as to why textually competitive counterplans are good.
Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks but you should know a few things about them to win them with me. As the negative, you need to win alternative solvency. If you don’t do this, you probably will lose. Negative, just because you give long overviews doesn’t mean you answered their arguments directly. You need to apply those arguments you made in the overview to the flow specifically.
Framework: Framework is a great way to tell me how to evaluate the round, whether it be policy-maker, or critical, or whatever you want. Be warned, I do not find the framework of “exclude my opponents because they debate wrong” persuasive at all. Just figured I would let you know that ahead of time…
Round Behavior: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Kicking Positions: I will not kick positions for you. If you argue it in the 2NR or 2AR, I will evaluate it.

2023 update: I have not judged in a couple years, so going a bit slower is best for me as well as explaining any jargon relevant to the topic.

email: gradywiedeman@gmail.com

I do not need to be on the email chain if it's an LD round, I would like to be on the email chain if it's a policy round. I have no preferences on standing/sitting.

Background: I debated for four years of policy debate (Norfolk, NE), debated NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska (2 years), and previously the policy coach at Lincoln High (NE).

Affirmative: Do what you want, I am not fundamentally opposed to nontraditional affirmatives.

Negative: Run what you feel comfortable with. I think playing to your strengths makes for a better and more exciting round. I am a sucker for theory debates but ultimately want to see what debate you enjoy.

Kritiks: The only particular I have is that the alternative needs to be explained well. If I don't understand your alternative, I'm going to have a hard time voting off it.

General: I try my best to vote based off of what I hear in round. I have particular opinions about debate, but I will do my best to judge based off the round rather than my own preferences. I prefer analysis over card dumping. The more contextualized analysis is usually the more compelling to me. In general, I like it when you're genuine with your arguments. I want you to like them and I want to be able to like them. You spent a lot of time cutting these positions, do them justice.

One thing I particularly don't like (and will have a hard time voting on) are quick and dirty theory shots to win the round. An example might be an observation that says you, by definition, win the round or something. If that's what you want me to vote on, a clean extension is not sufficient. You need to invest time into arguments that you want me to vote on, these observations/theory points included. I will not vote on a theory pot-shot that you put a combined 45 seconds into. I need analysis as to why you want me to vote on that thing.