James Constantino Paradigm

GENERAL NOTE

I judge LD more often than anything else. I was a CX debater in the early ‘90s, but I’m self-taught in LD. I WAS NOT a great debater in high school, so I have a great deal of empathy for the struggle. Since my focus is Lincoln Douglas, I expect debaters to discuss the moral and philosophical implications of the resolution in an LD round.

ABUSE
Any type of behavior that I find abusive (more than just aggressive) will probably lose you the round. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, so if you spread with the purpose of deception, constantly interrupt your opponent(s), or just make an attempt to erode the integrity of the event, I cannot accept your arguments.

TO GET MY BALLOT

I DO NOT want to be the one to make the decision about who wins a round; I want you to tell me why you won. This means it is your job to tell me the story of the round. Where was the clash? What were the voters? Why do your impacts outweigh theirs? Leave as little up to my discretion as possible. I will do my best not to have my own opinions and background knowledge influence who wins the round. Please meet me half way on this and make your win explicit.

JARGON

Debate jargon, like any use of field specific language, can be extremely helpful in summarizing a concept or describing how a mechanism functioned within a round. But you MUST be able to explain, in almost monosyllabic terms, exactly what you mean when you use the jargon. Debate cannot be allowed to be exclusionary based on one competitor’s experience with specific vocabulary and their opponent’s unfamiliarity. You should be able to explain any concept you utilize in a round to your opponent and to a lay judge.

FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and as I just explained, I don’t want to do that.

SPEED
I can handle moderate speed. I can follow a quickly read and enunciated speech, but if you slurring your words together, hyperventilating, or just being unclear, I will call “clear” twice: once to get you to adjust and a second time to remind you. After that, I will cease to flow and your opponent(s) is no longer responsible to address your incoherent arguments.

REBUTTALS
It is a debater’s obligation to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal speeches. A debater that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as arguments that go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line review of the round in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point. In other words, crystalize the ideas that were essential to the round, juxtaposing your positions with your opponent’s. As stated above, YOU should be the one to tell me the main clash of the round and why you won.

SPEAKER POINTS
My scale is essentially as follows:

· 30 – Perfection/deeply impressive.

· 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy

· 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

· 27 - Average

· 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways

· 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people

For Congressional Debate:

· 6—Near perfect speech. The arguments are clear, unique, persuasive, and well-delivered with a sense of style and confidence.

· 5—Excellent speech. Arguments are clear, unique, and persuasive.

· 4—Solid speech. Lacking in evidence or uniqueness (rehash) or delivery, but not more than one component.

· 3—Average speech. There were issues in clarity, persuasiveness, or delivery. Speech contained some rehash or did not demonstrably move the debate forward.

· 2-1—Major issues. The speech was purposefully offensive or was bad for education.

Background

• Did college NFA LD for 4 years

Miscellaneous

• I like talking to debaters. Feel free to come chat.
• If I make a face at an argument, I'm confused. It's never personal.

Bias

• Note: I'll vote on any of the arguments below if you win the flow but you may have to work harder depending on your choices. Here are some of my biases. 
• I like real-world policy action. My favorite debates affirm or negate a material action/policy to reduce suffering.
• I'll vote on the K but I like alternatives that do something. Any alt that meditates on the nature of human suffering kinda sucks. I'm easily persuaded to disregard it.
• I don't hate philosophy debates but if it's not relevant to the rez, join a book club.
• Don't like pessimism arguments. 
• Won't vote on death good/racism good/etc

Paradigm

• Please FRAME THE ROUND! I really don't want to decide which impact I like more.
• Tech > Truth but my BS detector is pretty good too.
• If you want me to look at your opponent's evidence, call it out in your speech
• No sticky defense. If it's dropped and you wanna go for it, extend the warrants. I'm not going to do it for you
• I can do basic cross-application of arguments (not the same thing as warrant extension). That also means contradictions deck overall offense.
• I like Double binds or "Even if" argumentation
• Warrant debates are the best debates. Evidence is good and necessary but you shouldn't hide behind it.
• Speed is fine but proportional clarity is required. I'll yell clear a few times. If you go fast, you better use up all the time.
• If you want to be super aggressive and condescending, you better not suck fam. Don't yell. Ad hominem = 25 speaks
• Don't make faces or talk during the opponent's speech
• A trigger warning for sensitive arguments is good but opponents can't prevent you from reading an argument
• If you bring outside drama into the round I will listen very very closely so I can gossip in the judge's lounge but I won't vote on an accusation I can't verify. If it's an ethics issue contact the tournament. 

NFA LD 

• K: Not super familiar with most of the literature but walk me through the argument and explain why alt solves the aff. Some kind of material action in the alt is probably recommended. I will vote on a vague alt-bad provided the warrants are good(time skew/allows aff pivot/etc).
• DA: Not much to say here. Win the link. Win the impact. Weigh/Frame. 2 good DAs > 4 bad DAs. 
• AFF: Pretty much an auto-lose on T if you aren't doing a material action through the actor of the rez. Neg just needs to say you are stealing neg ground and robbing everyone of topic education. 
• T: No proven abuse needed

PF 

• No new evidence in summary. New analysis based on evidence that has been read is acceptable
• 2nd Rebuttal is expected to attack and defend. I believe that having all new arguments in rebuttal makes the round clearer, and more educational saving grand cx for final clarifications
• If you wanna read theory in PF, I'll listen but it better be clear and good.
• Don't talk to your partner during their speech

Gray Graves

Please add me to the email chain: graygraves3@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns.

Debate Experience:

High School

- Millard West (2015-2017) Lincoln Douglas

- Millard North (2017-2019) Policy

College

- UNL (2019-Present) NFA-LD (1 v. 1 policy)

I coach Policy/LD at Marian High School.

Misc.

I am fine with speed, but require clarity and slowing down on analytics and tags. I will say “clear” as many times as necessary, which is a signal to be clear and doesn’t necessarily require you to reduce speed.

I think that Disclosure is good in almost all instances. I will vote on Disclosure theory in most instances, when debated well, because of this.

"Extend (Author, Year)" is not sufficient for an extension. Please explain what you are extending; This does not always require a huge time investment, but the former example is always insufficient. Conceded arguments should be brought up if you want it to factor into the round/decision, but I have a low extension threshold in those instances.

Do not clip cards. It will never be worth it. If a tournament describes a process in the instance of clipping, I will adhere to that process. If not, clipping must be pointed out immediately after the speech. The team alleging that clipping has occurred must stake the round on this concern and provide audio evidence. If I witness clipping myself, I will stop the round. Skipping over a sentence, phrases or single words repeatedly is grounds for clipping. Clipping will result in a L and <26 speaks.

Tag-team CX is fine, but please do not control the entirety of your partner's CX.

No prep will be taken for flashing/emailing. Conversely, please do not steal prep time.

Offense holds more weight than defense. Terminal defense is possible, but there is a high threshold for this.

I generally am "tech over truth." Having said that although, some arguments can overwhelm tech through its validity, and some untrue arguments will never win you the round in front of me, no matter how techy you debate it. So, take my leaning toward "tech over truth" with some skepticism and just debate well.

K

Critical arguments are the majority of what I read during my junior and senior year. It is also my favorite type of argument to research. In High School, I read Queer Theory, Puar, Bataille, Semiocapitalism, Neoliberalism, Settler Colonialism, and various identity politics arguments. Please do not read a K you are unfamiliar with in front of me because of my argument history. I will hold the K to a high standard of explanation and contextualization. The best way to read the K in front of me is to spend adequate time contextualizing and fleshing out the links, explaining the solvency mechanism and examples of the alternative (especially if it’s a vague theoretical alternative), and answering the AFF’s framing.

Be cautious on contradictions between the K and any other off case positions you have. If you notice a contradiction between your opponent’s K and another argument they are making, it is better to point this out and flesh out the theoretical implications/impact, than to read a theory argument, like Condo Bad.

Framework

I enjoy this debate. I have significant experience debating both sides. I have an agnostic stance toward it as a judge; I will vote either way.

For the NEG team, please answer the K team’s turns (DAs). This is often the easiest route to my ballot for the K team, and often bad FW teams do very little work to address this offense. I prefer TVAs with a solvency advocate, but do not necessarily require it. TVAs that just say the USFG does the AFF (at least in the context of the more obscure and theoretical methods) are usually not persuasive.

For the K team, I would like a strategic and offensive counter-interpretation. You are likely to lose the debate if you can’t debate traditional FW offense under your C/I, or do not do sufficient work on proving why the turns/DAs mean I vote for you.

Topicality/Theory

I really love a well-done Topicality debate. I default to competing interpretations.

I am extremely unlikely to vote for RVIs in policy. I don't think that it is as unwarranted in LD.

I am not extremely familiar with CP theory outside of PIC theory, Conditionality theory, and Perm theory.

I am not a fan of LD’s frivolous theory trend and am unlikely to vote on these arguments. “Drop the argument, not the team” and reasonability can be fairly persuasive, especially against these types of theory shells. Good and well-tailored theory is encouraged. Outside of this, I rather judge the substance of the round.

DA/CP

I love a good debate with either one or both off-case position. Please read specific links on the DA.

Case

Please spend some time on case, especially K teams. Although it's said a lot in paradigms, it's very true that HS teams often do not utilize/leverage case arguments enough. I particularly engage the use of case arguments as leverage for other portions of the debate.

ROTB

I default to 'vote for the team that debated the best.' I will not be happy if your plan to win the ballot relies on limiting out offense through an arbitrary ROTB that got conceded. I much rather watch a Framing debate than ROTB debate.

Speaks

Generally, I will determine speaks through this loose model:

29-29.5: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

28-28.5: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27.5: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

General stuff:

· I should be fine with whatever kritik you run. I might not have the best knowledge of it so make sure to explain well, but my background knowledge should be passable.

· I’m fine with speed, just be clear.

· Debates with more clash usually end with more speaker points for both sides.

Policy:
First of all, these are just my biases. I won't actively vote you down based on this no matter what you say or something like that, I'm just trying to make my leanings a little more open. You can go against these things and still win, just be aware that it might be harder to do so.

· I think that topicality is an important issue that at least warrants discussion in some instances; however it may be difficult to win against an actively non-topical team because all levels of the argument need to be won for T to be won.

· I’ll have a hard time voting for traditional condo bad theory against one conditional advocacy, but multiple contradictory worlds are probably not okay.

· Counterplans are generally fine, but I am partial to abuse arguments against Plan inclusive Counterplans, or PICs, because they generally seem to be a thinly veiled way for the neg to frame the aff out of the round. If there is sufficient literature base for and against the PIC, I will probably give it more leeway than say the ‘the’ PIC.

NFA-LD:

Pretty much the same as policy. One difference is the rules. I think the fact that they are written down is important so it may be a bit harder to win Topicality bad, and stuff like that.

Also, for whatever reason framework positions seem to be a lot more important in this format (probably because of the time constraints being different). I like framework with a purpose, i.e. framework designed to get you something by forcing your opponent not to do some sort of abuse that makes your arguments on case or for disads better.

On speed: it's in the written rules, so it's important. I think that the bright line argument is important, especially if one side is only going a little fast, but I think in most cases you can tell the difference. I went fast when I debated, but that's not to say I won't ever vote for this argument (although I may never hear it so who can tell).

LD
I debated policy in high school, so I don't have perfect experience in LD. I have read most of the traditional ethical philosophers, or at the very least know the gist of what they say (mostly Rousseau and Hobbes here), along with a lot of the newer, more postmodern stuff. The one thing I don't have a lot of knowledge of is the weird framework positions. I should be able to follow what you argue, and I'll try my utmost to evaluate the way the debaters tell me too. I like to look to the value-criterion debate for impact analysis a lot.

On voting:
I’ve found that I tend to like more technical arguments as well as impact calculus when it comes to deciding a debate. What I mean by that is when you explain exactly how you win at the end of the round and why your impacts are important, I am more liable to vote for that argument than your opponent. Basically, I tend to lean towards well-structured dispassionate rebuttal speeches as opposed to passionate disorganized rebuttals because I find it easier to justify my ballots.

That should be all the technical stuff that people need to know. Just have fun in round and try to be nice to each other. I think that the debaters should always be the ones to define the rounds, so just have fun and do what you want to do and I'll try to go along with it. I'd definitely appreciate something new, because I think that creative arguments are what makes this activity fun, and what makes it stand out. As such, I'll probably be giving you more speaks if your arguments come across as innovative and polished. Grounding your arguments in reality (even if it's a very non-standard view of reality) effectively is a reliable way to seem more polished.

Yes I do want the speech doc. ben.r.lampman@gmail.com

I debated LD 4 years at Millard North and saw a fair amount of both nat circuit and traditional rounds. I'm a first year out.

Im probably somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, as much as I love progressive debate, sometimes i'm baby, so just explain everything clearly and try to spread clearly pretty please.

Pre-Round Etiquette -

• If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.
• Disclosure is encouraged, but not required. If it's nat circ disclose, if it's trad I don't care.
• Pronouns! Tell me them! (Mine are he/him/his !)

Speed:

If I have a speech doc, i'm way more lenient, but I can flow a decent amount of spreading, just don't like, break the sound barrier or anything. Also please don't use speed as a weapon. I will tank your speaks.

How to get my ballot:

I normally will vote on anything, but I probably will gut check theory if I'm asked. If it isn't discussed in round, it wont come into the RFD. The arguments I prefer are: Larp>K's>Phil>Theory>Tricks

Just run what you like and have fun! I will vote on memey and fun arguments if you give me a reason to vote (And probably give pretty high speaks if the antics are appreciated)

On the flipside, it irks me to no end when debaters read memey arguments just to troll. If you don't actually prove why you have better access to the ballot than your opponent, you lose. Simple as.

(Also as a caveat: If the aff reads something that's like extremely serious or emotional, please do not meme it really ruins the brand and i will look like this >:-o)

Literally just clearly explain your args within the context of the round and why it should win the ballot. Make me do as little work as possible and we'll be gucci

Comment on Theory: This was the arg I had the least amount of experience with. I'm like still okay with evaluating the args but I need 1) a significant decrease in speed 2) articulation, enunciation, clarity and 3) explicit weighing to feel comfortable voting on it -> run at your own risk bc i'm telling you, you will probably Not be happy w my decision!!! Also, on disclosure theory, I'm incredibly uncomfortable evaluating violations when they're in the form of hearsay and screenshots and especially when I'm not in the room.

Also I will NOT vote on:

-Racism

-Homophobia

-Transphobia

-Sexism

-Literally anything on the same grain. Be a good person please please please please please it isn't that hard

Speaks

Im normally pretty generous on speaks, but a few pro gamer tricks:

Things that bolster speaks:

-Explaining arguments well enough that its clear that you know them inside and out

-Not being an a**hole

-Being nice to novices should you hit them

-Having a unique case

-Being able to name 30 distinct pokemon

-Not horsing around

Ways to LOSE speaks

-Being an a**hole

-Being problematic

-Not caring about novices

-Reading a position that you very obviously do not know

-Just be nice and u wont lose any

-Admitting that you unironically enjoy skim milk

Misc:

Ask me for any other questions because I definitely didn't cover it all

And finally, as a great person once said:

Be rootin

Be tootin

By god be shootin.

But most importantly

Be kind.

Email: matthewmatuszeski@gmail.com

Experience- I debated for 2 years for Millard North High School in LD, and I qualified for nationals my second year. I also debated for 1 year in college for UNL in NFA LD and also qualified for nationals. As a debater, I primarily ran kritikal stuff, or policy style(LARP) positions. That being said I can follow pretty much any argument you make so long as you explain it.

General Evaluation- I evaluate through framework/framing first before substance, I default to comparative worlds where I weigh the net desirability of the affirmative or negative unless a debater wins truth testing. I look to the flow when deciding rounds, I lean more tech over truth in evaluation. I presume negative unless given a reason to presume affirmative. I will listen to any argument made so long as it is not intrinsically harmful ie racism or sexism good.

Speed- I can flow pretty much anything you throw at me so long as you are CLEAR. I will yell clear/slow if I can't understand you a couple of times, but anything I don't get during your speech is on you.

K's- I enjoy hearing Kritiks when they are run well. I am pretty well versed in most K literature especially pomo and queer theory such as Deleuze, Baudrillard, Paur etc. A Kritik should have a link, impact, alternative, and in most instances a framework/ROB. If you have pre-fiat impacts you need to justify why they come before other offense.

Phil- I am less familiar with more heavy syllogistic debate, but I can follow so long as you explain how it functions cohesively.

LARP- I am familiar with policy-oriented arguments and enjoy listening to them. That being said you still need to win framework (or impact under your opponents) for your to impacts matter.

Theory/T- I will listen to theory and other procedural arguments and have voted on them in the past, that being said they are not my favorite to hear. I don’t automatically up layer any procedural argument, you have to warrant out why your procedural impacts come first. T is fine, it’s also not my favorite thing to hear, but I have voted on it many times and think it’s a strategic argument.

Speaks: I try to average a 28.5, anything higher I think you will break anything lower I think you won’t. The only instance I will ever give a 30 is if there is nothing I can think of that you could have done better, this is a rare instance. If you are rude during round or after, I have no problem tanking your speaks so don’t be an ass.

I debated for three years in LD at Norfolk.

If you’re cool with speed then i’m cool with it. I’m okay with just about any argument, if it has a warrant and you are winning the argument I will vote on it. Run what you are comfortable arguing. I’m okay with theory, but if you are running it unnecessarily I’m probably going to be annoyed. don’t be rude or hostile.

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.

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

Fred Robertson, retired teacher and speech and debate coach---lives in Omaha, Nebraska

I coached at Fremont High School and Millard West High School for the bulk of my career, retiring in 2013. I guess I am semi-retired since I do assist in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Omaha Marian High School for coach Halli Tripe, and I still judge on the Nebraska circuit fairly regularly. I also direct and teach at my non-profit, Guided by Kids, along with Payton Shudak, a former state champion Lincoln-Douglas debater at Millard West. At Guided by Kids, we offer free speech and debate instruction, as well as encourage community involvement, for 5th-8th graders in the Omaha metro area. I also ran my debate camp, the Nebraska Debate Institute, every summer from 2004 to 2020.

During my career, I served on the NFL/NSDA Lincoln-Douglas wording committee for over 10 years, and I was happy to be admitted to the NFL/NSDA Coaches’ Hall of Fame in 2015. Being in the same group as J.W. Patterson, the late Billy Tate, Lydia Esslinger, and Kandi King—to name just a few of the people in that Hall who have been or continue to be incredible individuals and educators-- is a great honor.

I judge Lincoln-Douglas debate more than anything else, but I will include Public Forum, Policy, and Congress as I have been used in those events as well.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

One thing that distinguishes me from other judges is that I expect quality speaking. That means you ought to be looking at me and speaking with inflection which shows understanding of what you are saying, even if you are reading evidence. I am tired of watching students read to me, even though they are delivering their cases to me for the tenth time. That’s simply bad speaking.

I am not a fan of speed when you can’t be at all clear. I’ll just say slow down and if you don’t, it’s your own fault if I don’t flow arguments or understand what you are saying. In debate, less can be more if you learn to choose arguments and evidence wisely. Too many LD debaters are adopting the “kitchen sink” style of debate—throw as much nonsense as possible and then claim drops as critical to how I should judge the round. Usually, that isn't a successful strategy when I am judging.

Lots of theory arguments made in LD are lamentable at best and would be railed against by policy judges who know what a good theory argument should be. I think that sums up my attitude towards 90% of the theory arguments I hear in LD rounds. That doesn’t mean theory arguments should never be run. What it means is that I usually see these arguments run in rounds in which an opponent is doing nothing theoretically objectionable, but nevertheless I’m stuck watching someone who has been coached “to run theory” always because it’s "cool" or who has made this bad choice independently. In these rounds, I am bored by meaningless drivel, and I’m not happy.

I enjoy debate on the resolution, but that does not mean critical approaches (critiques, or the K, or whatever you want to call it) cannot be appropriate if done well. I enjoy seeing someone take a critical approach because they genuinely believe that approach is warranted because of a resolution, or because of an opponent’s language in reading case or evidence (but there are limits—sometimes these claims of a link to warrant a critique are dubious at best). or because the debater argues the issue is so important it ought to be valid to be argued in any debate. I’ve voted for many critical cases and approaches in LD and policy over the years. If I see that approach taken skillfully and genuinely, I often find these arguments refreshing and creative. If I see that approach taken for tactical reasons only, in a phony, half-baked way, however, I often find myself repulsed by critical arguments posited by students who appear not to care about what they are arguing. I am sure many ask "How do you determine who is being genuine and who isn’t?" 40 years of teaching and coaching have made me an expert judge concerning matters like this, but I do admit this is largely a subjective judgment.

Telling me what is offense/defense and what I must vote on regarding your claims regarding these distinctions has always bored me. Tell me in a clear way why an argument your opponent has made does not matter, or how your answer takes the argument out. Using the jargon is something you’ve learned from mainly college judges (some college judges are quite good, but my generalization is solid here) but, at 66, I’m not a college judge. I feel pretty much the same way about the often frenetically shouted claim of “turns” aplenty. Settle down and explain why your opponent’s argument actually supports your side. I may agree.

Other stuff—fine to ask me some questions before round about my preferences, but please make them specific and not open-ended to the point of goofiness. Asking me “What do you like in a round?” is likely to lead to me saying “Well, I’d like one of you to speak like Martin Luther King and the other to speak like Elie Wiesel; or perhaps bell hooks and Isabel Wilkerson---but I doubt that’s going to happen.” Please be on time to rounds and come with a pre-flow done. Don’t assume I’m “cool with flex c-x and/or prep time.” If the tournament tells me I have to be “cool” with those rules I will be, but if I haven't been told that, I'm not. Ask me if you can speak sitting down. Of course I accommodate needs to do so, but often this is just done by speakers because it’s too dang hard, I guess, for you to stand to speak or do c-x. I find that perplexing, but if you ask, in a nice way, I may say “Oh, what the heck. It’s round five and everyone’s tired.” You should bring a timer and time yourself and your opponent; keep prep time also. I’d rather flow and write substantive comments rather than worry about timing.

A final word—I still love judging Lincoln-Douglas debate, and especially seeing new debaters who add their voices to this activity. It’s also a joy to see someone stick with the activity and keep getting smarter and better. Too often, however, I see very intelligent novice debaters who deteriorate in speaking skills as they advance through varsity LD. All I can say is that with the very best Lincoln-Douglas debaters I judged over a long and still-continuing career, that did not happen. Jenn Larson, Chris Theis, Tom Pryor (blast from the past for Minnesotans who remember that incredibly witty and brilliant guy), and Tom Evnen come to mind. I am old, yes, and I’m not “cool” according to many who would judge judges nowadays, but I am straightforward in telling you who I am, and I will never tell you anything other than the truth as I see it in an LD round I judge.

Public Forum:

Read my LD stuff to get the picture. I’m tired of continual claims of “cheating” in Public Forum. Slow down, read actual quotations as evidence and choose them wisely so they constitute more than blippy assertions.

I have no bias against PF at all. Loved coaching it and had many high-quality teams. A great PF round is a great debate round. Make sure to give me a sound “break it down” analytical story in the summary and final focus and you will be ahead of the game with me. Stay calm and cool for the most part, though of course assertive/aggressive at times is just part of what you should do when debating. It’s just that I have seen this out of control in far too many PF rounds, especially in Grand C-X, or Crossfire, or whatever that misplaced (why have c-x after the summaries have been presented?) abomination is called.

Policy: Love the event, though it was the last one I learned to coach fairly well. If I’m in a round, I usually ask for some consideration regarding speed, just so I can flow better. If you read my LD paradigm, you can see where I most likely stand on arguments. If I happen to judge a policy round, which is fairly rare, but does happen—just ask me good, specific questions prior to the round.

Congress: I usually judge at NSDA districts only but that of course is a very important congress event. I have coached many debaters and speech students as well who were successful in Congress, though it was never a first focus event with the bulk of students I coached. I like to see excellent questioning, sound use of evidence, and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see congresspeople extending and elaborating on arguments wisely, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. It’s wise for you not to do a lot of goofball parliamentary maneuvers. That’s just not good strategy for you if you want to impress me, and I most often end up as a parliamentarian when I do judge Congress, so overall impression becomes very important to how I rank you. I’ve seen some great congressional debate over the last 30 plus years I’ve judged it, but most of the time, I’ve seen too many repetitive, canned speeches followed by non-responsive rebuttal speeches. If you do what I prefer, however-- which is the opposite of that kind of “bad Congress”-- you can do fairly well.

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

Last Revision: December 9th, 2019

*Digital Debate Note (added 5/16/20):

1) I can handle just about any speed in person. The same doesn't hold true for online debate (at least until I get better equipment/get used to it). I hate telling people to slow down, but you should slow down during online debates. I will indicate via the chat function or by interrupting if you are lagging (just as I would say clear).

2) If someone drops out of the round via connection issues, we will pause the speeches.

3) Just like you wouldn't cheat by chatting with a coach during an in-person tournament, don't cheat in online debate.

4) Don't record the round without the permission of the tournament and everyone in the room.

TL;DR

Email for evidence/cases: colwhite54@gmail.com

I’ve coached or debated in just about every event, and I’ll do my best to adjudicate the debate as fairly as I can. Your best strategy is probably to make the arguments that you think would be the best arguments to win the debate. As long as you can do that while being a kind and ethical competitor, then you’re good to go. Respect the other people in the room and don’t be a jerk.

Let me know if you have any questions that aren’t answered by this paradigm.

Commonly asked questions about my preferences on a spectrum (heavily dependent on context - you do you 95% of the time):

Truth over Tech <----------------X---------> Tech Over Truth

• It’s probably not my job to say what’s true, but silly arguments have a much higher threshold of persuasion.

Speed <----X---------------------> NO Speed

• I mostly judge on a local circuit, but assume I can follow unless I say clear/speed.

“Trad” <------------------X-------> “Progressive/Circuit”

• I dislike these descriptors, so try to be more specific with your questions.

Debate the Topic <----X---------------------> Non-T

• I’ve personally read and voted for/against both, but I usually prefer if you debate the topic.

Quality of Evidence <-X------------------------> A Billion Terrible Cards

Number Your Arguments <-------X-------------------> Say “AND” between each card/analytic

Experience

I am the head coach at Lincoln Southeast High School, the former head coach at Lincoln North Star High School, and a former assistant coach at Lincoln East High School. I have been coaching since 2015. I run the Lincoln-Douglas Camp at the Nebraska Debate Institute. In college I won the 2018 national championship in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Forensics Association National Tournament after debating with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for three years. I was one of two American debaters to be chosen for the 2019 Tour of Japan through the National Communication Association’s Committee on International Discussion and Debate’s partnership with the Japan Debate Association. I also coached debate in Shanghai, China during 2018 through a summer fellowship with LearningLeaders. I competed in Nebraska high school debate for 4 years.

Events I most often judge/coach (in order):

HS/College Lincoln-Douglas

HS Policy/CX

HS Public Forum

HS Congress

WSDC (HS Worlds)

British Parliamentary (College Worlds)

American Parliamentary/NPDA (College)

HEnDA (Japanese HS Policy)

Specific Preferences Based on Events

HS LD

I evaluate the framework first and then look at which debater has the biggest and/or most contextualized offense under that framework. If I cannot distinguish your offense from your opponent’s offense, it is difficult for me to assess how the framework operates in the round. You have to tell me why your offense applies to whichever framework we’re using and why your opponent’s offense doesn’t matter or isn’t as important.

Ks are fine, phil is fine, LARP is fine, etc. Just don’t assume I know your lit. Hold yourself to a high threshold of explanation and go for one or two well-developed arguments rather than many arguments that are barely touched on.

Flex Prep: If both debaters are okay with asking questions during CX, then it's fine. I would prefer if you do not skip CX and use the rest as prep time. If you cut CX short, that starts cutting into your prep time.

I will not vote on your short, barely warranted a priori arguments that don’t connect back to a standard. You don’t get an auto-affirm/negate by dunking on silly trick args.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

HS Policy

Refer to the College LD paradigm to answer most of your questions. The only warning I’ll give you is that theory justifications that have to do with the exact format of partner policy debate need to be explained since I usually judge 1-1 policy through college LD. I’m not totally up to date on the cutting edge of thinking about best practices in policy, but that just means you’ll have to warrant your theory args and win them rather than pander to my theoretical biases.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

College LD (NFA-LD)

Yes, I do want the speechdocs.

I don’t find appeals to the rules persuasive.

Ks are fine - contextualize the links as much as you can. I want to know how the alt functions and differs from the Aff.

I will vote neg on presumption if the aff doesn’t function (I won’t vote for an aff with no solvency because they have a “risk of offense” - you have to win that you have a risk of offense).

I don’t need proven abuse to vote on T or theory and I default to competing interps (unless the Aff wins reasons why the neg does need proven abuse or wins reasonability, but that’s hard to do)

Disclosure theory is probably underrated in college LD.

Do not run full-source citations theory.

Public Forum

Don’t read actual plans or counterplans in an attempt to adapt to an LD/Policy judge. However, because I know what these positions are, I won’t drop you or your opponents because they read something that you thought was a plan/CP but wasn’t. Same goes for Ks/Theory Shells (however, theoretical justifications for things like definitions and observations - framework light - are super encouraged).

Read cards rather than paraphrase if you can.