Nebraska College of Law '24

University of Nebraska-Lincoln '20 (BA in History and Political Science)

4 year debater on NE circuit, this is my 6th year judging

she/her

Some preferences:

I am not a fan of speed.

Don't be rude. Being assertive is one thing, but being a jerk will hurt your speaker points

I don't write down author names, so don't just refer to your "Johnson" card

Signpost after constructive

Pleeeease have your cards/evidence readily available

***Debate needs be a safe and accessible environment, give trigger warnings. Do not commodify/weaponize sensitive subjects for the sake of winning, I will not weigh those arguments in your favor.

Argumentation/weighing:

I am fine with any type of argumentation you want to use

- but just an FYI, I am not super familiar with progressive PF

2nd speaking teams don't have to rebuild in rebuttal, but it probably would be advantageous to do so

I care the most about your warrants, so explain your links as clearly as possible. I hate seeing huge impacts with poor explanations as to why they happen

- so, please! don't ask me to extend your argument from a tagline

I rarely call for cards at the end of the round, flesh them out for me!

If the round is a total wash, I will presume neg

Most importantly: have fun and be respectful!

Congressional Debate:

I typically envision a congressional debate speech to be a combination of a public forum speech and an extemporaneous speech. In that sense, I like organization to the speech to be like an extemp speech and some time occasionally reserved for refuting previous speeches. I typically rank to the following criteria:

1. Participation in CX and speeches

2. Quality of evidence and delivery of CX and speeches

3. Relevance of CX and speeches to the ongoing debate of a specific piece of legislation. This includes introducing new points to the debate or refuting old ones. Rehashing is alright if you are refuting a refutation and would like to support a previous speaker on your side of the debate.

There is obvious wiggle room here, but generally it means someone with a smoother extemp-like delivery who refutes others and gave four speeches will get a better rank than a speed-reader who rehashes points that gave 6 speeches.

CX should be relevant to the speech or debate. They should challenge the speaker, clarify a speaker's point, or push the debate in a certain direction. I think participating in CX is vital as you fall in precedence to make your presence known and allows you to push the debate even if you will not speak for another hour.

Fair warning: I'll pretty much toss everything here out the window the instant you're an unpleasant or disrespectful jerk in-round, including being a smarmy wanna-be comedian looking for dumb jabs at your opponent.

Stopped coaching and judging "full time" in 2018 to move back into academia. It was a healthy move, but my flow speed has tanked since then. Deal with that.

TOC top speaker in 2006. Former PF coach and active judge. Philosophy, Art and Theatre degrees.

Easy Mode: I disclose results of every round unless attacked by tab not to, and even then just ask me in the hallway before tab yells at me twice. However, you'll know before the end of the round pretty easily what's up just by paying attention. I'll laugh at patent absurdity and scowl at obtuse knuckleheads. My facial expressions detail *exactly* how I feel about what you're doing in every moment. This is bad community theatre facial expressions kind of stuff, people. Use it and react to alter what you do and run in the round.

PF tl;dr-->Expect second team to respond to attacks on case in rebuttal. Summary should crystallize the round, not be a rebuttal expansion. Will not vote on morally reprehensible water tester arguments like 'genocide good' or 'climate science is a liberal lie'. Will vote down on reprehensible decorum including blatant sexism and harassment. Default neg on presumption of affirmative burden of truth/net outcome or in case of insoluable flow.

LD tl;dr-->Somebody entered me in the pool by accident or desperation. I still have a philosophy degree if you're willing to slow the heck down...but I've honestly enjoyed nearly every round I've been in.

CX tl;dr-->Did it and moved on. Not here by choice. Do professional theatre and art criticism, and did Theatre of the Oppressed with Boal at UNO, and continue to be a Joker as part of pedagogical practice. Not impressed by shenanigans. Slow it down but don't insult my intelligence on argument structure.

Longform (PF primary)

It will forever be my goal to treat debate as a fundamentally educational activity. If I have one goal every tournament, it's to make at least one team know that they got the best possible feedback and push forward they've ever gotten from a judge and member of the debate community. We are here to make sure debaters come out the other side of a round as better students and people.

I am happy to see PF move in new and intelligent directions. Willing to listen to direct-clash TV-ready Ted Turner Debate as well as traditional policy maker standpoints, kritiks, theory, and performance elements if presented clearly within the confines of PF time structure, but recognize that you still have to make the round at least productive and educational for all involved rather than attempting to exclude or undercut other teams with a blatant attempt at LD or Policy approaches, and only 4 or 2 minutes to present them. This new-ish nat-style, hyperdismissive wanna-be technical jargon-fest is both annoying and utterly embarrassing in how much it gets wrong in trying to pull from LD and CX. Stop it. Use your time to build a core narrative with solid comparative analysis, not card dumps and baby's-first-topicality.

I hold to a line-by-line flow and expect second team to respond to attacks on their case in addition to engaging the other team's case. Turns and dropped arguments are voters if presented by a team, but in cases of competing voters: theory-framework and direct impact calculations should be done by the debaters. If I end up with null arguments that lack interaction analysis I will look elsewhere before coming back to pick apart the argument interaction myself.

Framework for round structure and impact weight should carry with it minimum standards of preference vs competing frameworks, be it educational, grounds based, or decision process justified. Competing frameworks should not drown out the remainder of the round, especially if you're going to go evidence heavy or engage in competing ideologies. You can still win the round if you accept your opponent's framework if you meet it and can offer comparative analysis that places you in a preferable voting position...and most of the time counter framing is just bickering in PF. Pick one and win everywhere else. If it's truly abusive, it should be an easy call to standards to say so and move on or prefer yours.

Summary should be THE place to present the clarity of your round vision, and make solid decisions on what the round has become, what can be disregarded, and where it should end up. No new arguments [and ideally no new evidence] from here on out. Final focus is an opportunity to pull from the summary vision and perform, crystallize, and leave no question on your side winning.

Aff must show, at minimum, the truth of the resolution. In cases of "on balance" resolutions, you must engage in comparative analysis to develop the status of this truth. Magnitude, time frame, probability, and threshold offer basic elements to compare two impacts.

I will pref neg if aff fails to meet minimum burden of resolution, or if round is left in an inconclusive position/null impact state. Don't expect great speaker points for anyone if that second situation comes up.

So long as the tournament/circuit rules doesn't explicitly forbid it: competitive alternative advocacy is fine by me. [Facing NSDA rules on plans and counterplans though, just follow them explicitly] Permutations by aff against alternative actions by neg are just tests of competition unless you push for wider terms of impact from the perm. However, if aff can show that neg alternatives are non-competitive vs plan/resolutional action, no amount of competing 'solvency' can push neg for a win without them also presenting a net harm to aff that has been dealt with via comparative analysis. Hey aff! Topical counter or alt with no net benefit or harms from neg? Just coopt it, and we can be cool.

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull render a final ballot decision on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

Generally start at 28 on speaker points and move up or down. 30 is perfection in speaking, argument structure, logic and overall sense of "this is what is good about a PF debater". 26 and below are reserved for refusal to engage in clash or logical analysis while simultaneously being a totally unpleasant individual in terms of respect towards your opponent or myself. Speaker points are an opportunity to send a message of the kinds of interactions that will and will not be acceptable in a safe and educational environment.

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the event as a whole. Keep it respectful, smart, and funny within the round and you'll make it a better day for everyone involved.

I debated in high school and college (graduated 1968) and have been coaching since. I have lived through the transition from Debate to Policy Debate and the birth and development of both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Lincoln-Douglas (value debate) was created because many people did not like the direction that Policy Debate had gone. As such, LD debate centers around a conflict between two values. Debaters argue that one of the values in the round is of higher importance than the other. This value priority determines the affirmation or negation of the resolution. Thus, the debater argues Justice(ex) is the higher value, and since Justice is the higher value the resolution is affirmed. A plan can be used to demonstrate how the resolution could be applied in a practical sense. Since LD is designed not to have a plan, if the opponent raises that argument, I will vote on that. Otherwise, the plan can be debated in terms of workability, practicality, etc. Regardless of the strategies used – in order to win the round, the debater must win the value conflict.

Public Forum was introduced to correct the flaws that had emerged in LD (excessive speed, strategies and tactics rather than sound argument, etc) and is designed to be judged by a non-debate person. Thus – a good Public Forum Round is clear and persuasive. Arguments and evidence relates directly back to the topic. There are no plans in PF – I will vote on that. A test that I use in judging PF is whether or not a “regular person” would understand the arguments and be able to decide the outcome of the round.

Since debate – in all of its forms – is an educational, communication event the following hold true:

Delivery is the means by which the debater presents the arguments and evidence for decision.

The presentation should be as clear and understandable as possible – rate and articulation are important elements because the judge must hear and understand the case in order to vote on it.

IT IS THE DEBATER’S OBLIGATION TO ADAPT TO THE JUDGE – NOT VICE VERSA.

Debaters should present their material and conduct themselves in a professional manner. They should avoid attitudes (reflected in both tone and facial expression) that are unprofessional. Word choice should be appropriate to an educational event (cussing, swearing, vocabulary choice etc) have NO PLACE in an educational activity.

Katie Ford--4 years of high school debate at Fremont Senior High School, Nebraska. 2.5 years of collective college debate experience between KCKCC and Emporia State University. Double-octafinalist at CEDA Nationals 2014 and 9th speaker at the CEDA Nationals 2014 tournament. Multiple time tournament champion and outround qualifier. Former assistant coach for Westside High School in Omaha, NE and former assistant coach for Lincoln East High School, Lincoln, NE

My paradigm is not what I require of debaters when I'm judging them, but mere suggestions that I think can improve the quality of debate. If I am judging you, your best bet is to go for whatever arguments you're comfortable with, I'd rather see you debate well with what you know well, than struggle to cater to what you think I want to hear. Regardless of my preferences or the arguments I used to read in debates, I will still vote for whatever argument wins the round. Debate is what you make it and I'll evaluate it how you tell me to.

My speaker points are generally as follows:

26s & Below: These are reserved for debaters who have said atrocious or harmful things in the debate round. The lower speaker points you receive will depend on how much I think you are harmful for this activity. If you actively harass, assault, or make anyone in the room feel unsafe, I will likely give you a 0.

27-28.5s: These speaker points are for average speeches that perhaps were poorly constructed or were just not well explained in the round.

28.6s-29.3s: These speaker points are for debaters who are well versed in their arguments, and are able to win flows and make smart decisions in their answers, links, etc.

29.4s-29.7s: These speaker points are given to debaters who have all-but owned the debate, there isn't much more I could ask out of them in the round, perhaps a few small things here and there that were not a big deal. Smart choices, persuasive speeches, and confidence in your arguments and advocacies.

29.8s-30s: You owned the debate round.

Aff Things:

I don't care if you are going to read a plan text or not, either way, you need to have a well-explained story for how your method/plan/advocacy/etc. solves the impacts that you claim it does, whether it be through a plan text, ROB, advocacy statement, or just a well-constructed 1AC. I think affirmatives have seriously started slipping when it comes to internal links.

I would rather listen to a couple of really good pieces of evidence than 37 cards that you can divide up into four sections of arguments that all say the same thing. Quality over quantity, this is still a communication activity.

Whatever you like to do, is what I'd like to see you debate about. Be affirmative.

Neg Things:

Find good links, even if they're analytical. Make presumption arguments; I feel like teams forget that the status quo is negative ground.

If you're reading K's, I'm down. But please don't assume I know exactly what your entire K said, how it solves, etc. just because you said a particular author that I am in general familiar with. You are still held to the responsiblity of explaning your advcocacy and solvency, just like the affirmative is. Also, don't just keep repeating the same words that your author uses without contextualizing your arguments to the affirmative teams' or the debate in general.

Framework/Topicality: If you're going to go for Topicality, do it smartly. Don't read really generic, old, boring, and bad T shells. Make nuanced arguments that makes the affirmtiave defend why their argument is productive educationally for debate.

If you are going to go for framework, I'd rather you didn't read it in the generic, unproductive way that everyone tends to. Introduce policy education into the debate in some way and provide the education you felt was lacking from the affirmative team.

DA's: Make them actually link. If you're going to go for a DA just as a way to prove the aff is untopical via a no link argument they'll likely make, please don't spend half your time on it and then kick it in the block or 2NR. I don't want to waste that much ink.

"Non-Traditional" Negatives: Explain what your advocacy is, contextualize it to the aff, have links.

Other Things:

Don't steal prep time, it's obvious, and also annoying.

Don't purposefully take forever to exchange files if flashing or emailing... it's also obvious and also annoying.

I don't take prep for flashing/emailing/whatever

I will likely keep track of prep time/speech times

Don't cut cards and don't lie about what cards you read

Have fun

Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

My preferences for public forum debate are as follows... 

I want to see clash and impacts clearly. I would like to receive LOTS of analysis and explanation with contentions and cards. During speeches, I expect proper decorum and respect for your opponents, especially in cross examination when directly speaking with one another.  During summary, I would like the round summarized not another rebuttal and then strictly voters in final focus. I want to see the big impacts of my vote and what ¨the world¨ would be like if I voted in affirmation or negation.  

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

I'm a fourth year judge. Speed is acceptable. Make sure that you flow through, or I won't consider it. If you make an assertion, mostly likely I'm going to need some evidence that that is true unless you can find a logic that would make your analysis true.

I'm going to take the evidence that the Congress or the executive wants to do something on very flimsy basis unless you can show support that it is mostly likely going to pass through both branches.

BIO

I debated for three years (2012-2015) for Lincoln High School in Lincoln, NE. I competed predominately on the local circuit in LD, with a few national circuit tournaments in both PF and LD. I qualled to Nationals my sophomore and juinior years and broke at the three LD bid tournaments I attended. I am currently a junior at Stanford University studying History and Political Science. Feel free to email me at calebm@stanford.edu if you have any questions for me!

LD

Speaks -

Will start at 28 (average) and move up or down from there. 29 is great, 30 is perfect; 26/27 is below average; 24/25 = you said something deeply offensive that warrants an apology to your opponent

Speed -

I am fine with moderate speed as long as you are clear. I will yell clear as many times as I need to; that being said, your speaks will suffer if I am constantly yelling at you to be clear. If you are going to read quickly, please read your tags/authors more slowly for sake of clarity.

Theory -

I was never a huge fan of theory arguments as a debater, but will still evaluate it in the round if you chose to run it. Read your interp and violation slowly, and give me very clear ways to evaluate it in the round. I am ~not a fan~ of friviolous theory args and am a little bit weary of theory in general, especially if you read it just to be tricky/confuse your opponent, so please don't read theory for the sake of reading theory.

Standards -

I am fine with a FW/standards-oriented round. I like good organization/clarity in standards. If standards are important in the round, (a) weigh impacts through standards and (b) give me a way to understand the impacts in terms of that FW. Am also fine w/ a collapsed standards debate in the round, if that's how it goes. There needs to be some sort of FW clash if you're reading non-traditional (especially role of the ballot) arguments

K's/policy arg's -

Fine with them, but please slow down on author names/tags + provide clear links. Don't have much knowledge of critical authors, so do a good job of explaining dense phil clearly. If you read a K, please give me a way to evaluate it in the round/do lots of work to tell me how this fits within a framework (or precludes a particular FW, etc.)

General things I dislike -

• being unnecessarily rude/mean to your opponent, especially if there is an apparent difference in skill level
• general messiness
• spikes (especially w/o warrants), skepticism, blatantly silly/ridiculous positions
• sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. positions

PF

PF background: Compteted at three tournaments in PF - Millard West, Lincoln Southwest, and the 2014 Nebraska State Tournament.

-FW/definition debate: if that debate takes that direction, I am fine with that; however, I do not want to see warrantless reasons to accept your FW/defn and really don't want to see a debate that devolves into this. If there are competing FW's, give me clear analysis as to why I should prefer a specific FW or defn.

-I want to see analytics and impacts drawn from evidence, not just cards thrown around; weigh in terms of magnitude/timeframe/proability, or at the very least do impact comparison with your opponents

-I am fine reading or speaking at brisk/fast in PF, as long as you are not going policy level speeds

-This is PF; time constraints are a thing, so please don't spend the whole time pulling through things without doing (at least a little bit of) big picture. Relveant in summary and necessary in FF

-Will start at 28 (average) and move up or down from there. 29 is great, 30 is perfect; 26/27 is below average; 24/25 = you said something deeply offensive that warrants an apology to your opponent

General things I dislike (same as LD) -

• being unnecessarily rude/mean to your opponent, especially if there is an apparent difference in skill level
• general messiness
• sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.

To start off, I was a PF debater for 3 years and I am currently a coach for Millard West.

I debated on both the Nebraska Circuit and National Circuit so, for the second rebuttal I don't really mind what you do as long as you effectively sign-post. I'm not great with speed, but I can understand speed that is faster than a regular conversation. 

I fully support the use of framework in a round. It makes it very easy for both sides and the judge to be on the same page. The most important thing is that you continue to pull that framework through the round not only by reminding me of it, but by tying everything that you do back to that framework. If your opponent sets forth a framework, even something like "I always win because I'm me so you must vote for my team," and you don't respond to it, I will use it to decide who wins the round.

As far as evidence, I will ask for any card that either team continually questions or tells me to pull. It's best to tell me the author's name of the card and/or the claim that they are making with the card in any speech. I am more than willing to ask for evidence that wasn't questioned in the round but, unless the evidence is very different than the claim made, I won't necessarily drop the argument.

I am totally fine with "sas" but I don't like people being overly aggressive. I understand that some aggression is natural, but pointing that aggression directly at your opponents (accusing them of "whining," yelling over them in crossfire, etc.) will lose you speaker points.

Speaker Points:

A 28 is where you start and then either go up or down. A 30 means you were able to speak well and that you kept my attention while speaking. A 26 means something went wrong and I'll definitely tell you about it in my RFD.

Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. The feedback is entirely for you so nothing that is said after the 2nd FF will sway my decision at all. The only thing that can sway my decision after a round is if evidence has been misused.

Updated 4/11/2024

My Background

I graduated from Lincoln Southeast High School (in Nebraska) in 2015, where I primarily competed in Congressional Debate, but often did Public Forum as well. After high school, I graduated from Nebraska Wesleyan University in 2019 with a BS in Political Science, and minors in Business Administration, English, and History. During and after college, I was an assistant debate coach at Creighton Preparatory for about 5 years.

After college, I moved to Japan to teach English in a small rural town, but came back to the US during the Covid-19 pandemic. I worked for almost a year (accounting/admin assistant) at a fire equipment/general safety company, until I moved to Chicago to start law school at Northwestern University. I will graduate from Northwestern in May 2024, and sit for the bar exam in July.

General Preferences

Generally, for all forms of debate, I want you to follow the standard format of claim, warrant, impact. If you dump a ton of evidence on your opponents, but don't explain why it actually matters to the debate, I will not weigh it as heavily as evidence that is fully warranted and impacted out.

Framework - If you provide a definition or observation/burden in your case, explain why I ought to evaluate the round within your framework compared to your opponent's framework or my own conception, especially if your definitions or observations are unconventional or obscure. This is not permission to provide an abusive or unfair observation or definitions.

Flowing - I flow everything I hear, and nothing that I don't. If you drop arguments, whether those be your own or your opponent's, that will likely hurt your case. Ultimately, sometimes a round for me comes down to which side did a better job of extending arguments and impact across the flow.

Speed - I flow on my laptop, so I'm okay with some speed, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with my ability to understand your speech or to flow the round. I highly prefer a relaxed and emphatic delivery over a rushed one, and if you are speaking too fast for me to follow, you run the risk of me dropping an argument on the flow. Spread at your own risk.

Speaker points - I tend to be on the more generous side of doling out speaker points, because ultimately, what matters is which side better explains their arguments/wins the round. I have occasionally, but infrequently, given out low-point wins.

Prep time - A personal pet peeve of mine is when you tell me to start your prep time. I'm actively watching the round, I can tell when you are starting prep. Additionally, if you call for a card, I will not run the time until you are given the card by your opponent; time starts as soon as you start reading the card or taking notes. DO NOT waste time by not having cards available for your opponents; if your opponent asks for a card and you take 2 minutes to find it, but your partner is prepping off the clock in the time it takes you to find it, I will be extremely displeased.

Congressional *DEBATE* Specifics

I'm often asked to be Parliamentarian in Congressional Debate rounds that I judge. (I loved POing as a competitor, and I love being Parli now.) I greatly appreciate that Congress has a clear set of rules to facilitate faster, fairer, fuller debate. Please follow them to the best of your ability. I'm not a fan of students/other judges/parliamentarians encouraging/allowing suspension of the rules, because it's unfair to students who are following the provided framework and expectations. If you show a good understanding of Parliamentary Procedure, that can sometimes result in a rank boost, and I always consider ranking the PO, whether I'm a Point Recorder or the Parliamentarian.

There is a reason that I emphasize that this is a debate; please do not come to a tournament with completely pre-written speeches. In my opinion, the only speech that should be prepared 100% beforehand is the authorship speech (I would love to see these off-script, almost memorized), and every other speech should be formed on the spot, based on research and some basic bullet points you want to cover, but built around and adapted to the previous speakers on that topic. I dislike speeches that ignore/don't refute/build upon previous representatives' points. I similarly dislike rehash. If you pre-write a speech, you will ignore previous points/speeches and likely have rehash. Please keep in mind that this is a debate event.

Public Forum Specifics

Summaries should start to wrap up and address the main arguments that were relevant in that round. Final focus should hammer home why you won those points. If, in rebuttal, summary, or final focus, you drop something I see as a big argument, expect that to be reflected in speaker points and outcome of the round.

Lincoln Douglas Specifics

I know very little about the mechanics of an LD case beyond value premise and value criterion. I also have only a minimal background in philosophy. Therefore, I think it's best to consider me a lay judge in LD. I prefer a traditional value-criterion centered argument, in which you directly tell me why to weigh your case/framework over your opponent's. I'm not as familiar with Theory or K Debate, but I will try to follow along.

Policy/Chicago Debates Specifics

Like LD, consider me a lay judge in Policy. I will try to follow along as best I can, but when it comes to my RFD in policy rounds, most of the rounds I have judged come down to my flowsheet. If you spread beyond my ability to understand, especially if the speed is what I'd consider to be particularly abusive to your opponents, I probably can't flow, and you probably won't pick up my vote.

-Primarily a PF coach and judge with experience in all debate events.

-I'm a note/flow judge, although arguments are still weighed on their quality rather than just quantity "pulled through". The earlier and more consistently an argument is made, the more weight it will have if carried to the end of the round.

-This is in addition to weighing arguments on their evidence and impact(s). While I won't insert outside arguments into the round, a weaker argument will still be weighed accordingly even if the opponents don't respond sufficiently (although a team that clearly rebuts bad argument will win the point more strongly).

-Evidence is important, especially the more specific the data or the more counter-intuitive a claim is. I remember citations in round by their content more than the author: so rather than only saying e.g. "our Smith card already refutes that point", be sure to also bring the simple explanation of what the evidence says and how it applies.

-Because topics will often provide contradictory evidence for debaters to use and my ability to investigate authors/credibility/etc in round is limited, it's often the case that the side that offers the best warrant analysis in round can make the difference (explain why your evidence makes more sense).

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

My previous paradigm preferences are four years old at this point and likely outdated. I have deleted them for now.

I am likely much, much worse at flowing these days than I was when judging all the time. I have been a tournament tab resident for years on end now, and that likely means I'm not as up to date on new progressive developments in rounds.

Here's what I'll say:

- Don't treat me like I'm a dummy, but don't presume I understand everything you're saying. I need you to do the work of explaining arguments, articulating impacts, and explicitly weighing within the round.

- I expect that a PF team going 2nd will have a rebuttal that both answers the opponent's case and rebuilds their own. Any argument not addressed in the 2nd team's rebuttal is a conceded argument, and if the first team makes it a voter, that's likely ballgame (assuming there is offense on the argument for the 1st team).

- I'm watching everything, but if you don't make it matter, it doesn't matter.

- In PF, I'm not going to break my back to follow you at a thousand miles an hour, so if you're fast, I'll give you one verbal "CLEAR" in the round to let you know you're leaving me behind. I will not feel at all responsible for what you might think is a bad decision if the way you're speaking disregards my ability/inability to follow and flow you.

- I expect clear and explicit voters in the final speeches.

- I'm not at all impressed by debaters who are jerks to opponents. This is a community, and everyone in it should be a steward of that community. Decorum, in extreme cases, is a voting issue for me, and I do consider my ballot my greatest means of discouraging outlandish and abusive behavior.

- I want full text reading of evidence, not paraphrasing. Upon the request of the opponent, cards not provided in a reasonable timeframe will be disregarded as if they don't exist.

If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

Include me on email chains - rawme9@gmail.com

My name is Ried and I debated 4 years of NDT/CEDA Debate, 2 at Lindenwood University and 2 at Emporia State University. I have also coached at Lincoln East High School, Lincoln, NE for 3 years. I will keep this brief and try to make clear my biases and assumptions.

At this point in my career, I am not heavily invested in the politics of debate or shaping its future. I am far more interested in how these skills, conversations, and advocacies transfer outside of the debate space. This doesn't inherently exclude any argumentation styles, but it may change how you want to frame them in front of me.

I am most familiar with K lit, in particular my studies focus around narratives, anti-blackness, and colonialism. However, I also did policy debate and understand that fine. I am not shy about telling you that I didn't understand something, so please try to actually explain yourselves. Just because I am familiar with a literature base does not mean that I am familiar with your particular critical vocabulary.

Finally, please ENGAGE with the other team and what they are saying. This can be straight opposition or it can be more nuanced but it needs to happen.

28.5 is an average debater.

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.

Ryan Wiegert- English Teacher/Debate Coach, Millard West

2 years judging PF, 1 year judging LD, 3 years judging Congress

Here is my overall paradigm, followed by changes for individual styles:

Speed of Delivery- I am strongly opposed to spreading and policy-style speed. While speaking at a clip is expected in a debate round, reading at “auctioneer” speeds occludes communication, games the system, and is frankly just irritating. I won't weigh anything I don't clearly hear.

Civility/Decorum- I absolutely expect politeness and civility in debate. You might still win the round, but I will be harsh on speaks.

Role of the judge/Meta- My role as a judge is to sign the ballot. That's all.

Kritiks- I usually just straight-up drop a k. I've made exceptions, but I would seriously recommend running an alternate case or using a strike on me.

---Specific Style Paradigms---

Congress:

While Congress has more of a delivery component than other debate styles, it still needs to involve debate. I need evidence, I need clash. After the initial authorship/first negation and maybe the first aff/neg exchange, the delivery style should be primarily extemporaneous and needs to address prior speeches directly. I grade repetitive/reheat speeches pretty harshly, unless they are summary/crystallization speeches. I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse, so when it's time to move the question, move it.

Public Forum:

I definitely subscribe to the idea that PF is supposed to be lay-accessible, and I encourage debaters to treat me like a lay judge despite the fact that I'm a coach. I'm not a fan of trying to win on technicalities and shenanigans.

I drop kritiks, plans/counterplans/topicality and any changing to the wording of the resolution.

The team that speaks second needs to address both the first team's case and rebuttal. This makes up for the advantage of having the last word in the round.

Extending your arguments is critical, and you have to extend them. I'm not going to do it for you. By the same token, if your opponents drop an argument, you need to call that out.

I like my summaries line by line. The final focus needs to include voters.

I don't flow cross-examination. That exchange is for the debaters to help develop the speeches which follow.

I do not weigh new arguments introduced in grad cross or later.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I tend to prefer traditional cases to the weird stuff. You can still win with the weird stuff, but you need to make sure I understand it.

Policy Style Arguments: I will drop you if your opponent runs even a basic LD style argument. If you want to do Policy debate, there's a whole division of the tournament for just that.

Lincoln-Douglas is the style of debate where I will accept theory and philosophy. Debaters in LD are not required to provide implementation.

I do not flow cross-examination in LD. Those exchanges are for you in preparation for the rebuttals to follow.

The aff debater cannot use the 2AR to "make up" for dropped arguments in the 1AR. The neg debater cannot introduce new arguments in the NR.

Don't speed. I cannot stress this enough. I won't flow what I don't understand.

I will drop you if you change even a single word of the resolution. I've seen this on cases lately and I'm not here for it. If you want to change the nature of the argument, you need to do that in framework.

The way to get my ballot is to show me how your value and criterion would improve the status quo, even if your better world is hypothetical.

I'm not a fan of trying to win on technicalities.

Dropped arguments need to have actual weight in order for me to consider voting on them.

-- PF --

I would consider myself to be a "traditional" PF judge, if that helps. I flow everything, but you need to impact and explain. I expect the second speaker to respond to the rebuttal of the first speaker. I am good with speed and most other PF styles and tactics. Spreading is highly discouraged. I don't believe it's effective, good, or educational, and I may drop you on face. If you just read cards at me and don't impact them, don't expect me to weigh them. As well, if you only extend a card by saying "Johnson 18, war is bad, pull through" that puts it on the flow but doesn't give it a lot of weight.

I'm open and willing to hear most any argument as long as you can explain it well and back it up. I tend to give long winded RFDs, so if I get talking for a long time, don't hesitate to say something. Sometimes I forget how long I've been going on.

-- LD --

I don't judge LD often. I would probably be considered the more traditional in terms of LD, and my judging style will be similar to my PF judging. I will flow everything. The value seems(?) to be the most important things, so make sure you tie your arguments back to it. Ask me as many questions as you want/need to, I'm still learning LD. I will also not be insulted if you correct me on something or challenge me on something.