Here are the basics:

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round. I prefer you wait to do this until both teams are present, so everyone is on the same page.

I competed primarily in LD in Nebraska in the mid 1990s. So I'm probably a bit older than most judges. Since then I have been a volunteer speech and debate coach while in college, and a head coach of a more-or-less rural school in Nebraska. I've coached a variety of events and styles within those events with successful PF, LD, CX, and congress competitors.

Things that probably matter most to you as a debater if you see my name in your round:

I like creative, critical thinking based on relevant, topical literature.

I think debate should be about the resolution at hand. I have picked up teams/competitors who argue outside of the resolution, but those instances are rare and your argumentation, delivery, and rationalization as to why we should have a round about your content or method needs to be near flawless.

I prefer debates that deal substantively with the evidence and arguments that support each debater's position. Consequently, comparatively weighing impacts, evidence, frameworks, etc. is very important. If you don't do that in the round, I'll have to do it on my own and decisions then become a bit more arbitrary. Debaters who identify the primary areas of clash in a round, and tell me why they are winning those areas generally get my ballot. Tell me the story of your advocacy, and sell me on that story.

I used to not be a fan of running plans/counterplan, disads, or other policy style arguments, but the resolution styles and argumentation is becoming more clear here. I'm still not sure how a counterplan functions when there isn't a specific plan in the AC, though. In general, I default toward a tradition value/criterion structure and weigh the round through that lens. I don't think you have to win the framework to win the round; if you have access to the opponent's framework and your arguments impact better there, you win. Finally, I'm not very likely to vote for your argument that says my decision in this round is going to impact the world, the debate community, or other in round impacts. I enjoy a lot of the literature that surrounds K arguments; but framing it with an in-round impact isn't very persuasive to me. If you have a theory argument that your opponent is excluding you from the round for some reason, make sure you articulate that clearly.

In PF, the likelihood of my voting on a plan/counterplan position is pretty small. If you run one and your opponent argues that PF isn't the place for those, you'll probably lose the round at that point. Of course there is plenty of room for creatively constructing arguments on both sides of most resolutions -- so you should do that. Aside from that, I'm not a fan of soundbyte-y type arguments that seem to frequently appear in PF. I would like some clear arguments based on evidence and analyzed comparatively to your opponent's arguments. Show me where there is clash and tell why you win there.

Hi, I’m Evan Burns (he/him). I debated in LD for 4 years at Millard North and this is my first year out. I am currently studying actuarial science at UNL.

My email is evanburnsemail@gmail.com if you need to contact me; please include me in any email chain or speechdrop.

TLDR: Read whatever you have fun reading and win on the flow to get my ballot. More specific details are below. If you’re a novice go to the very end there is a section specifically to help you.

First and foremost, make sure your opponent can access the round. Unsafe and bigoted arguments will not be tolerated, this all should go without saying. If it needs saying within round, then you’ll lose and probably need to talk to your coach about it.

General Things

Tech>Truth. I vote based on who is winning the flow.

My goal when evaluating the round is to evaluate the flow with as little intervention as possible. In my mind, assuming or defaulting to some method of evaluating is intervention. What this means for you is I do my best to not vote on presumption or permissibility unless explicitly told a reason to. Tell me what matters in the debate and why, so I don’t have to baselessly make the decision what does.

Don’t assume I know your authors and assume I don’t have topic knowledge. The more complex a position you’re reading the more time you need to explain what that position actually is.

Extensions should have warrants. I want a warrant pulled through the entire round for me to feel good voting for an argument/impact.

Weigh your impacts, don’t make me decide which impact matters the most. Weigh why it matters under whatever framework/ROB/weighing mechanism you have. Do meta-weighing of which weighing mechanisms are the most important. Weigh, weigh, weigh; more weighing can almost always help you and almost always makes my job evaluating the round easier.

Judge instruction is good, it makes it much clearer to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t set aside time for giving judge instruction with me as your judge but do refer to how the line by line is contributing to you getting the ballot.

You know how to signpost; I shouldn’t need to ask you to do it.

Evidence sharing is a must in debate, speechdrop is easier for me but get your case to your opponent and myself however you want to.

I will vote for disclosure theory and lean towards disclosure being good. This doesn’t mean I always vote for disclosure, just win the argument or win the argument that disclosure is bad. In most instances it’s also worth asking before the round for the case and not just getting your disclosure shell ready.

Sit or stand, do whatever is comfy.

Cross-ex certainly exists. Don’t stall too much time in it or be too mean in it. I don’t flow it but I do pay attention. If you want to mention it in a future speech, go ahead just be sure to be specific with what was said during cx and what you are trying to get out of it.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters are fine with it.

Specifics

Trad/Framework: I am perfectly fine with these rounds and am very familiar with them. If this is how you want to debate don’t feel obligated to do something more complex just because I’m fine with more complex arguments. If I’m on a panel with judges who prefer trad debates, don’t think you’re boring me by going for their ballot, just try to win the flow and have some clash. Debating value is strategic in 1/10 trad rounds, before you argue why your value is so much more important than your opponent’s assess whether you are in a round where that is round. If your criterions/frameworks/single standards are different then clash between them is important otherwise I have 0 clue how to

Ks: Ks are fun read them with a couple specific things in mind. I am familiar with most stock Ks and can follow along with most Ks that are read some amount in debate. If you’re reading something especially obscure put in the legwork in explaining it more. Specific links are always better than generic. Be specific about what prefiat impacts you have (if any). Floating PIKs are shifty, you need to actually define your position. When responding to Ks I much prefer when the perms are specific and applied to the Aff you’re reading. With that in mind, perms=severance should have a specific reason why the Aff’s specific perm severs them from the 1AC. In general specificity will get you much further in most K debates.

K-Affs: As a debater I read these occasionally and have less to say about them. If you read one be ready for the T-fwk debate that follows. Topical K-Affs do exist but if you need to ask if you’re K-Aff is topical then it probably isn’t. Don’t waste everyone’s time by insisting your K-Aff is topical when it isn’t. It can be difficult to win that being non-topical is fair so don’t make that you’re primary strategy on the T-fwk debate.

Larp: Larp is not something I personally read a lot, but I’ve debated against it and am familiar with it. Read it if it’s what you want to do, I can keep up with whatever offs you want to read and will evaluate them on the flow. If you want to have a round about more of the theory of larp debate that’s where I’ll start to get a little lost if it gets too dense. When in doubt ask me or spend a little bit more time explaining than you usually would.

Phil: I am fonder of phil debates than most and am familiar with a number of authors; however, I am not fond of phil as a way to just get to presumption/skep/permissibility triggers. Read phil as a position you want to defend, not as a trick. That all being said I enjoy most phil positions if you’re trying to get some offense out of them. Read descriptive frameworks if you want to, they’re cool.

T/Theory: Theory is important to debate, that doesn’t mean it needs to be in every round. Theory that has a point is good, frivolous theory isn’t. I default to competing interps for theory and generally think every RVI should have an argument for why it exists built into it, but I am very open to being convinced a different way of evaluating theory debates is better. Make any arguments you want about what the best way for the judge to approach theory debates as you want. The paradigmatic issues in your shell is very important and skipping it is making the theory debate more difficult for you. The thing I care the most about in theory debates is getting from the standards to the voters. The most straightforward way of in why the standards your norm promotes link best into fairness and education. You can also use other voters than fairness and education, just justify them.

Tricks: Tricks are separate from theory because I don’t think tricks are important to debate. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on tricks but the threshold I have is if an argument takes 5 seconds to make and has half a warrant, then I don’t have a problem with your opponent spending 5 seconds on it and giving half a warrant against it. Blowing up a blip into half of your next speech is also not a good practice.

Speed: I’m fine with speed, but it’s good practice to check if your opponent is. Don’t start at you’re full speed and be sure to slow down for tags. Analytics should be differentiated and some amount slower than cards. All that said, the most important thing is clarity. It doesn’t matter how fast you are if nobody can understand you.

Speaks: Speaks are kind of arbitrary, I’m not going to be tanking your speaks but I’m not giving everyone a 30 because speaks still matter for breaks and seeding. 28.8-29.2 is what I consider to be average. You can make arguments about getting higher speaks in round, just have a warrant.

RFDs: My online RFD is usually more in depth than my verbal one, but if there is something specific you are curious about feel free to ask after round or find me later at the tournament. Arguing with me after round or post-rounding are probably not a good idea, but if you don’t understand or disagree with why I voted the way I did, try to ask questions to have a better understanding of where I might disagree with you.

Debate is supposed to be fun, don’t take it too seriously and have a good time.

Anything I might have missed you can email me or ask me in person and this paradigm will continue to be updated as I think of things I want to add.

FOR NOVICES

First just please signpost and tell me what argument you are responding to in your rebuttals it makes the round much less messy. If I don't know where to put an argument on the flow it is difficult to evaluate. Signposting only serves to help your arguments make it onto my flow.

In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. Don't just say, "Extend x because it was conceeded" to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round. The easiest way to do this is to explain why your impacts weigh the highest under both frameworks. I will evaluate the round by looking at which framework wins and then using that framework to see which debater has the most important impacts they are winning. This can be easily shown to me by saying at the end of the round, "Judge you vote Aff/Neg because X outweighs under Y framwork because of ABC. This impact happens because of DEF scenario."

In my RFD I will explain why I voted the way I did, what arguments factored into my decision, and which did not, as well as non-voting issues to help you become better debaters. If you have any questions about anything in the round feel free to ask.

Feel free to ask before round if you have any specific questions about my paradigm and good luck novices!

He/Him

E-Mail: quinncarlo024@gmail.com

MSHS Asst. Coach 2y, (Policy 3y, PF 1y)

ASL Interpreting major @UNO (1st language: English)

Debate is about the people and the experience, so be kind.

In my days I used to run trad left affs, and Cap Ks. I trust you'll help me understand whatever you run.

LD: LAST EDITED 2/23/2024 LD is about philosophy for me. I suppose that makes me trad now... I feel old.

FW: Winning FW means I will evaluate the round through that lens. FW is not an independent voter.

SPREADING: If you spread use SpeechDrop, AND DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS.

Ks: I've found that it is more difficult for me to buy a K AFF than anything else. That being said, I would love to engage in a discussion on K subject matters outside of the round.

• ROB: Vote for the better debater- to me means I’m looking at who cross-applied evidence well, who didn’t drop anything, who carried cards through their speeches, and other techy stuff.

THEORY: DON'T use theory as a means to win a ballot. Run theory if there is a genuine equity issue within the round.

• Disclosure Theory: If there is no in-round abuse (de-linking out of args), and/or your opponent gives you their case via SpeechDrop, I'm unlikely to vote for you.
• Spreading Theory: If your opponent asks before the round if they can spread and/or invites you to tell them to slow down, I'm unlikely to vote for you.

T: I am less likely to buy that the AFF needs to defend a specific plan as opposed to the general Value/Ethics of the Topic. Because LD is different from Policy.

→ Don't use other people's disadvantages to win you a ballot. Advocating for the rights of minorities as a majority can be fine if it is done in good faith, and you understand your case. If you are cishet advocating for the rights of queer people without knowing what it means, that's sketch.

I coach Congress, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum. This is my 21st year coaching. My judging experience includes local tournaments, State, and NSDA qualifiers, as well as prelim all the way to finals rounds at NSDA Nationals in all three categories. In 2019, I had the honor of judging the two LD finalists in their Quarter/Semi-finals rounds. In 2020 and 2023, I judged the finals session in Congress Senate and House. Up until a few years ago, I would have said that I am a "traditional" judge. However, I have opened up to a lot of things because the times are changing. That said, there are some things that you need to know.

- Speech Drop / Case Sharing -

I know what the "norm" is, and this is going to take a lot of getting used to for me. For now, here is where I am at. Do not share cases with me online. My fear, and it is a condition I have, that if I stare too much at my laptop and read, I will zone out and not realize I have stopped listening. My focus is completely taken away, and that is a disservice to you. So, I refuse to do things electronically outside of balloting. If you feel the need to give me your case, it must be on paper, but I will not read it unless there really is something I question about the validity of your evidence. Also, do not expect that by giving me your case that it is your way of telling me that this is everything your opponent must address. This is also not me condoning speeding. I will continue to flow what I hear and base decisions on that flow. See the rest of my paradigm for more related information.

- Progressive cases -

Critical Affs: I was taught that the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true. This is engrained in me. I struggle with things like Critical Affs for a couple reasons...1) The methodology with which people perform is one that I cannot grasp. I have tried to understand format, but in many cases, I have seen people use this style to confuse their opponents only to end up confusing me, too. 2) To ignore what the Affirmative is supposed to fundamentally be about denotes a certain amount of selfishness and avoidance of issues that are just as valid and important to debate. Without an Affirmative that does its burden, it seems simple to me to have the Negative just come back and say that the Affirmative technically negates the resolution, too, which is technically true. The Affirmative has literally given up their ground on the topic at hand. The Affirmative may have very legitimate reasons to change the topic, but that doesn't change the fact that they vacated the space that was held by the Affirmative, which means the Negative can move in.

Kritiks on the Negative: This is something I have opened up to as I have furthered my education. The Negative needs to negate the resolution and/or what the Affirmative advocates about the resolution. It is possible to look at a resolution and disagree with it based on the wording of it. In Congress, students debate the wording of the legislation and explain that they negate because of specific things the legislation states. I can get behind that and understand that. HOWEVER, being too complex is going to frustrate me, which I will explain later.

Now, what happens when I have come upon situations where both sides are running some really progressive cases? What do I do then? If I don't understand you, I won't vote for you. Beyond that, since I am not as familiar with these styles, you risk me missing something, and so accept the fact that I will be voting with the side that makes sense to me the most.

• Policy style used in other debate types -

This is becoming difficult for me since so much has bled into LD/PF/CON. There is terminology I am starting to understand, certain case structures I am starting to understand, but having watched Policy rounds from time to time...I still don't understand it, and I have gone to camps and had a few policy teams trained by a policy coach years ago. It's still too complicated for me, though, and so I still say if you try to do this in LD/PF rounds, you risk losing my ballot. Personally, I want Policy to stay in Policy. My debaters are starting to learn things from their rounds, though, and I judge rounds, so I feel like I am slowly understanding, but deep down, I just don't want the complexity of Policy anywhere else besides in Policy. So, what happens if both decide to be Policyesque? Again, whichever side I understand better, is the side that wins.

• Theory -

This is hit or miss on me. If the theory is logical and deals with the topic, I am interested in it. If it is meant to take a detour away from the topic, then I am not. I also will not include theories that aren't applicable. For example, I had a debater say that disclosure was necessary for small schools that do not have resources. The debater who said it was not from a small school, and they had plenty of resources, and I know because I coach a small school, and I knew the school the debater was from. Another debater said we shouldn't debate the topic because it was triggering and was emotionally affecting them. The opponent simply said that they knew what the topic was going to be and obviously prepared cases for this tournament as well as had to be registered. So, if you run theory, just know that you are now including me and my views of the theory in on this debate, and now I get to choose whether I buy into it or not rather than remaining objective between you and the opponent. And if your theory doesn't hold up in my mind, that will not be a determining factor when I vote.

- Speed -

Don't do it. I can't follow it. I can't write fast enough, and I can't digest the information well enough before you have moved on to something else. This is especially not helpful if you try to do cases that are overly complex. I also have a fundamental philosophy against it. No where in any form of political arena is wicked fast speed acceptable. And given that most of you will never actually go into the political field, but rather get a typical business/medical/educational kind of job, I can't imagine you being praised for your speed talking there either. You speeding is telling me that you want to cheat your way into winning because you hope your opponent can't keep up with you or understand you or be able to cover the massive amount of things you spread. To me, you are not trying to debate. You are trying to find a way not to debate. Now, what happens if both of you just ignore me and speed anyway? Yet again, the person I understand the most wins, and both of you risk me missing some warrant, link, or impact that you clearly think makes you win the round, but I didn't catch it. Your speaker points will drop anywhere between 1 to 3 points as well.

- Ideal vs. Pragmatic -

I pride myself on being a logical realist, but I am not against the ideal. In fact, by not working towards the ideal, we don't grow. I will use No Child Left Behind as my example. Very illogical! Very damaging on so many levels. However, when it was in practice, I did see the value of it. It bothered me when people would say it is impossible to get 100% children passing. I kept thinking, well why wouldn't you at least try? As lofty a goal it was, the government was not wrong in wanting our compass pointed in that direction. Their methods left something to be desired, but the concept was good. So, what does this mean here? Don't think that I will automatically vote for you because you present the case pragmatically. On the reverse, do not be so absurd and so far out in left field with ideals that I'm forced to say, "There is absolutely no way I can imagine this ever happening." Therefore, telling me something like not getting rid of hand guns will lead to weapons proliferation and mass destruction is probably not going to get you my vote. Telling me that getting rid of hand guns is a step in the right direction, on the other hand, is believable and worth considering even if it doesn't come to full fruition.

- Congress -

Your scores/nominations will be based on the following... 1) An organized and well-structured case with significant/meaningful cited evidence is critical, BUT 2) your presentation of that information is also critical. As public officials, you are supposed to be an advocate for your constituents, so sound professional and passionate rather than an indifferent newscaster just reporting the facts. 3) I like strong, unique arguments that really make me sit back and think. I like it when you look at all kinds of angles on an issue. 4) I like you giving me evidence and analysis telling me why I should care. 5) And, of course, you need to refute the representatives who go before you. It wouldn't be a debate if you didn't do that. Therefore, canned speeches are not the best way to go with me. I get that you have specific information you want to relay, but you can tailor information to what other debaters say. Being able to adapt and talk extemporaneously is a key characteristic of this style of debate. 6) This also plays into how you answer questions. Answering questions well proves you didn't just write a good case...you can talk beyond that case - you really have a deeper knowledge of the topic.

- Lincoln Douglas -

Generally, I do V/C debate, but I have opened up to the concept of "Standard" and "RoB". I am beginning to see that "Standard" is just another way of saying value or criterion, and "RoB" is another way of saying criterion. I do struggle with the format of the cases, but I follow fairly well. Either way, this is the style where philosophy is supposed to be at the core. See "Ideal vs. Pragmatic" above. Ultimately, though, I should see a clear weighing mechanism. More importantly, though, LD is about the way life "ought" be. There are philosophical schools of thought on how we should live life that clash (ex. individualism vs. communitarianism) So, basically, you should be proving to me that this philosopher/psychologist's prescription for life is the best way to go. Evidence (defined as the facts to support the advocacy of a philosophy) should be used to help solidify that position. Ultimately, though, you need to answer my question: Why is living life this way the best idea? For example, in the violent revolution topic, the question that needs to be answered is...why is the philosophy that supports violent revolution the way we need to live? Throwing a bunch of information at me about how violent revolution causes so much death, is meaningless to me because I could argue from the angle that sometimes it takes that kind of extreme to make change happen. In fact, there is a whole study on how it takes causing conflict to create actual change. If all you do is throw examples at your opponent, then all your opponent has to do is throw examples back at you...like the American Revolution. Obviously, our violent revolution turned out great for us. So, again, you have to look deeper in LD. While we won the revolution, that doesn't mean that is how we "ought" to have done it. The impact of having that violent MENTALITY is really where the debate lies if you take that angle. So, evidence of events can only take you so far. You need to have philosophical/psychological evidence to rationalize it. In terms of the round, ultimately if there isn't a value/criterion to judge on, it comes down to reasoning and significant/meaningful impacts that play out in your voters.

- Public Forum -

Your arguments and evidence should lean on ultimately explaining to me why I should care with significant/meaningful impacts. However, I should not be getting outlandish impacts like the 1% extinction. One way or another, this world will come to an end. On average, the typical span of a species is 1 million years, so banking on something like that is wasted on me....and so are apocalypses. I like arguments that make sense and are realistic. Telling me something will cause WWIII just does not seem realistic unless you can somehow prove it will actually happen, but even then, it is such a huge hypothetical. Hypotheticals are not something I really get into. Final Focus should really be able to paint a very clear picture to me what the world will be like if I vote one way or the other. As for being a team debate, I should see a good balance between partners. Speaker points can be affected when one partner clearly surpasses the other partner's participation in the debate.

I have a preference for traditional style cases but limited experience or preference for progressive style cases; I approach debates with an open mind and a commitment to fairness and impartiality. While I may not have extensive familiarity with progressive arguments, I am willing to listen and evaluate them based on their merits within the framework of the debate.

When evaluating traditional-style cases, I look for clear structure, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who prioritize clarity of expression and adherence to established debate norms such as value criterion analysis and clash. I appreciate debaters who effectively use rhetoric and persuasion to support their positions. Additionally, I prefer debaters not to speed in their delivery, as clarity and comprehension are paramount in effective communication.

In regards to progressive style cases, while I may not be as familiar with the specific arguments and frameworks, I am still interested in learning and understanding new perspectives. I encourage debaters to explain their arguments clearly and provide sufficient context for me to evaluate their contentions. I value creativity and originality in argumentation, but I also expect debaters to maintain a level of coherence and relevance to the resolution.

My judging paradigm emphasizes the importance of clear communication, logical reasoning, and adherence to debate conventions. While I may lean towards traditional style cases due to my familiarity with them, I am committed to evaluating all arguments fairly and impartially, regardless of style or approach. Debaters can expect me to prioritize substance over style and to provide constructive feedback to help them improve their skills regardless of the type of case they present.

LD Paradigm

I have 4 years of high school LD and PF experience. I also have several years of high school coaching experience and judging experience, including significant experience with circuit debate. I am traditional in the sense that I enjoy a well-organized, well-supported, logical debate. I am big on impacts and well-explained/well-supported arguments. That being said, I am generally a tech over truth judge - Though I have preferences, I strongly believe that the judge’s role is to enter each round as a blank slate and vote based on what is happening in the particular round. I am open to and enjoy hearing different types of arguments (K's, theory, performance, etc.), so long as the aforementioned criteria are met. I only vote on what I hear in the round and despise rounds where I have to make a lot of logical leaps to get to a decision. I am also a big fan of crystallization, and for that reason, I generally dislike line-by-line in the 2AR. In short, I like to be entertained during the round, and I expect the debater to persuade me by winning the interactions in round interactions.

I am generally comfortable with speed as long as you are enunciating and I can understand you. That being said, I am not going to drop my pen, say “clear,” etc. when you are going too fast/not understandable. It is up to you to ensure that you are communicating in a way that I can follow. If I’m not flowing, you probably need to slow down and/or speak more clearly. Please note, while speed typically does not influence my win/loss decision, it may influence speaker points. I believe speaker points are reflective of communication skills, and talking as fast as possible does not necessarily highlight those skills. My perfect 30 speaker will be able to communicate not only quickly, but with clarity, confidence, and eye contact.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask or email me at mhenninger@adventip.com.

Email: jehenson00@gmail.com but I prefer speech drop

Background: First year out, I competed at Lincoln North Star in LD for all four years. I qualified to the TOC my junior year, and NSDA nationals my sophomore and senior. I’m now doing NFA-LD at UNL.

As a debater, I mainly went for identity K’s. I read a lot of different authors like Schotten, Puar, Muñoz, and Halberstam.

Tech > Truth

TLDR: Truly you can read anything you want, while I have my preferences I will evaluate the flow and vote on anything as long as it isn’t violent.

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any kind of ism or phobic. I will drop you if I feel the space has become unsafe. Meet any accommodations your opponent asks for.

Disclosure is good in the debate space and I will vote on disclosure theory.

Speed: It’s fine as long as you’re clear and slow down as tags.

Policy: Go for it. If you can read impact turns I really enjoy those.

Phil: I have some experience in more traditional phil (Rawls, Hobbes & Locke, Kant) and I really enjoy watching these debates. I don’t want them to boil down to tricks and different skep triggers.

Tricks: I would say you could run well-warranted tricks but those don’t exist. Tricks aren’t cute, just don’t.

T/Theory: Go for it, I really enjoy a good T debate. I default to competing interps.

K’s: I really enjoy K debate, however, don’t assume I know your lit. I can’t vote for anything I don’t understand, and it usually becomes obvious during cross if you know what you're talking about. I’m most familiar with queerness, fem, setcol, and ableism.

K Aff’s: I love non-topical affs. The one thing I would say is you're probably not going win your fair, I believe it's better to just go for impact turns but I’ll evaluate anything on the flow. I think that framework is a strong argument against K aff’s and will vote on it if well articulated.

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

Stanford 2024 update -I don't seriously participate, coach or judge in the debate anymore. i would pref me one rank below what you have me based on my paradigm. i also have zero topic knowledge besides my previous knowledge on the MENA region

Please have the email chain or speech drop set up before round –yoyolei.debate@gmail.com

---------TLDR---------

1- policy/ks/k affs

3-theory/t

5- trad/phil/tricks

~treat me like a policy judge who will buy almost if not all ld positions~

I do disclose speaks

Please send analytics that are being spread

--------- GENERAL --------

I felt like my original paradigm was too convoluted and drawn out, so I decided to move it to a google docs that is linked at the end. Otherwise the tldr should be enough if you're just doing preround prep or prefs (if you are preffing, consider preffing me lower because I have been out of commission for so long). feel free to look at my essay of a paradigm if you desire, it just elaborates on my stances above.

I am pretty generous with speaks as well as just general debater nonsense in round. With that being said, please be a kind person, I have very little patience for people who are rude without reason.

[FOR K DEBATERS SPECIFICALLY] Please do not use jargon while explaining your theory of power, you should be able to tell me the story of your k, either in cx or in your overview without using words that only a PhD candidate would understand. I've been googling what words mean in round and that shouldn't happen so please dumb down your speech at least 20% for me, thx!

Old Paradigm

she/her/hers. I am a cynical person.

-

Apparently, I vote affirmative 51% of the time. Sorry about that.

If your opponent says that your authors need to be a particular identity, I am fully expecting you to say that all of your authors are that identity. Lying is okay if your opponent is needlessly shifting the goalposts. Likewise, you do not win if your authors are x identity. That's literally anti-intellectual.

A K/CP must fulfill each: Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. If I don't understand your alt, that's probably bad. You should try to win something other than the CP.

I don't enjoy topicality debates. Yes, you should be topical. I do not care to adjudicate what is not topical enough. I will typically err on the side of 'more topical is better.' Theory arguments exist. I think they are rather boring. I do not vote on "norm setting." Fairness is a voter.

A good round discusses philosophy. I will vote on any cogent argument. This is not an invitation to read Kant. This IS an invitation to read extinction good.

The 2AR is not where you extend all the things you didn't have time to mention in the 1AR. If I vote on any late extensions, it's because I considered the round a coinflip.

NEBRASKANS:if you show me undeniable proof before round, that you've read indexicals in two rounds this year at local tournaments, then I'll give you +0.5 speaks than I otherwise would have. Depending on who the judge(s) was/were in that round and the importance of the round, I might give you even more.(One of the rounds cannot have been in front of me).

Dear Novices: I very much love and appreciate you, but will a little more if you 1. have some framework interaction (tell me why I should use your framework and why I shouldn't use your opponent's) and 2. do some impact weighing (explain why your impact(s) is the most important compared to the others in the round). Keep up the good work!! you can ignore the rest of my paradigm.

Online: I wasn't very good at flowing online debate so please speak clearly and use inflection in your voice to emphasize key things you want me to get down.

For the email chain or whatever feel free to shoot me an email: iansdebatemail@gmail.com

My Debate background:

I debated 4 years at Millard North, 2 years of policy, and 2 years of LD. I had success on a mixed bag local circuit(progressive and traditional), winning tournaments and speaker awards. I was okay on the national circuit, breaking at some tournaments. I qualified for Nationals 3 years. I was a flex debater running mostly Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.

Currently on my demon time as an assistant coach at Millard North, coaching LD.

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Larp- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to:

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility affirms, Presumption negates.

No RVIs(it's not hard to convince me otherwise though.)

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

I tend to give pretty high speaks, 28.5= Average Debater. I base speaks on efficiency and the quality of your arguments, I don't care how pretty you speak so long as I can understand you.

Be Nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive (Racism, queerphobic, etc.)

Event Specific:

LD & Policy- I'll evaluate these two the same way.

Larp: Didn't do much of this in either event, just make sure you give me a justified framing mechanism so I can evaluate and weigh impacts, instead of just assuming I care, I.E. if you make Cap good impact turns on a cap k even if you end up winning them, if your opponents ROB is the only framing mechanism your impact turns mean nothing (unless you articulated a way in which they weigh under the ROB).

Phil: I read a good amount of phil, I'm fine with Normative or Descriptive frameworks. I read Kant, Hobbes, Functionalism(or constituivism), Realism(IR), International Law, Contractarianism, and maybe some others that I can't remember.

T/Theory: You can see some of my general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are my lens in which I use to evaluate the theory debate and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you do weighing between your arguments don't just repeat your arguments verbatim in the rebuttals and expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (In front of me yes policy kids you can debate paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI.)

Kritiks: I mess with Kritiks, one thing I'll generally note on them is that their ROBs are typically impact justified, either don't have a impact justified framing mechanism or explain why being impact justified is good or doesn't matter (if this is an issue brought up). I'm most familiar with Modernist Cap ks. I'm familiar with D(& G), Puar, Buadrillard, Foucault, Agamben, Afropessimism, Queer pessimism, maybe some others you can always ask. Please still explain your arguments, I will try my best not to commit the sin of judge intervention by doing work for anyone.

Tricks: I ran tricks a little bit, they're fun please just make sure they're clearly delineated and are actually warranted and implicated in the first speech that they're made in. Also try to read them slower.

PF- Never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism in which I can evaluate the round and weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand.

Congress- I did congress once, if I end up judging, you should probably try to appeal to the other judges more, I don't care how you speak, I like clash and I like the content of what you're saying.

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

Evidence sharing - yes please. Would prefer to get word docs but would rather have something rather than nothing.

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a disappointing lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier. I've especially noticed the more pedantic impact/internal links/interps/etc. the less likely I am to give it a bunch of weight.

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

General notes:

- 3 years of debate experience in PF, Congress, and LD, congress national semifinalist. 3 years of judging and a bit of coaching as well.

- She/her pronouns, you can also just call me judge or Adi

- Don't be sexist, racist, etc. It will kill your speaker points and arguments.

- Generally, be nice and polite! Please normalize content warnings for touchy subjects.

- NO SPREADING. I will stop flowing and cross my arms. I will also yell clear and be really annoying about it. I hate it. Keep speed no more than about 7/10.

- I don't flow cross for arguments, but it can help/hurt your speaker points.

- I will not weigh arguments or impacts without sufficient, credible, real (!), sources. Analytics aren't my thing.

- Have fun!

PF:

- I know I'm the minority in this, but I actually don't feel strongly about disclosure. I'll probably vote on the small school response if it comes down to it, but every round is different.

- I will listen to any type of argument (theory, whatever) and impacts (yes, even extinction). Not a huge fan of these nontrad or extreme arguments, but it's not an auto drop.

- If you like to call for cards, SET UP A SPEECH DROP/EMAIL CHAIN AHEAD OF TIME. I'm not gonna sit there while both sides waste time calling for 40 cards just to look at them for 5 seconds and never mention it again. I will start dropping speaks.

- I’m like 70% truth and 30% tech. If you want to convince of something weird, its possible, but I'll default to truth if you don't meet a high standard.

- 2nd summary and final focus are not places for new arguments. There should be lots of weighing and analysis.

LD:

- Mostly the same stuff as PF so see above!

- I don't know must of the LD specific lingo, but I'll listen to whatever! Just be sure to explain it. Pretty open minded here, just don't be abusive. I want the debate to be fun, accessible, and interesting. You can always ask me questions before round.

- I don't have a tolerance for speed. 7/10 max. 5-6/10 comfortably. I don't care if you send me the doc or not - don't do it. I will vote on speed theory. I'll probably auto-drop if I can't flow it. Just don't do it please!

I debated in LD for three years in high school in the mid 2000’s. With that being said, I am a traditional judge in that the Value/Criterion debate is an important determinant in the round. Should this become a wash, I expect sound logical arguments and LINKS to impacts that I should care about . Make sure these are clear , I won’t assume . I am open to multiple types of arguments (Kritiks, Counterplans etc.), however, they must be proven and well warranted. Debate is all about clash so burdens of proof and quantification of a particular sides obligation can be problematic if not argued soundly. Speed reading ( or spreading as the kids like to call it) is ok , but if I cannot understand you and stop flowing, then that is not to your benefit. Speak clearly or I will not flow the argument , periodt. Debate is a wonderful educational activity and I expect professionalism and decorum along with some fun. I also expect an unequivocal respect for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the debate round and amongst competitors. Happy Debating!

Contact info: Jess, They/She, jessodebato@gmail.com

Speech drop > Email

Quick Version :p

1 = Strike me; 10 = Pref me

Tech over Truth

K-Debate & LARP = 10

Phil = 9

Topicality = 8

Theory = 6

Trix = 2

Long Version :/

Experience:

- Queer+ Blasian

- Policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD).

- Read phil and k

I am a queer Asian/Black person. To be objective, requires me to acknowledge my social location. I read Reid-Brinkley’s essay on Debate and racial performance last summer and was struck by so many things that were purely true. I want those in debate to not have to perform something that they are not. Being a black debator doesn’t mean you have to read Afro pess or a queer debator doesn’t mean you have to focus only on queer issues. But in the flip side, I see how insidious debate is with the privileging of extinction level impacts that continuously abstract debators from the resolution and their embodiment. This is where I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to, your bodies, minds, and wishes precede those of what is expected of you to get the ballot. Being Tabula rasa, to me, means to be anything but a blank slate, it requires understanding a multiplicity of difference that integrally affects how I adjudate the round - “the thing then becomes it’s opposite”, subjectivism turns to objectivism.

Current paradigm (2022-current) ~~~~

Preferences are 1 (low) - 10 (high pref). X marks the spot.

Stock/Util affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

Notice how I put stock “LARP” affs on the same level as K affs. I think I have equally voted for both styles of argumentation equally. I have seen some fantastic Stock affs that fundamentally interact with K’s and explain the K’s theory of power better than they do. It’s not about what kind of argument, but how you have weaved what you are defending to attack your opponents stuff. For example, I watched an stock gun control aff hit a queer rage aff, whereas the gun control aff used the theory of criminalization of urban areas to impact turn social death - that absent threat of force, the criminalization of entire populations in urban areas, which include queer people would have no justification.

Kritiks/K-Affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

I love K debate that is explained well! Give me good links, clever argumentation that interacts with your opponents arguments/assumptions! I love queer pess, Afro pess, historical materialism ~ new developments in K lit. As long as you make your arguments apparent and not obscure to the point that your opponent doesn’t know what’s going on, then we’ll be good.

Theory: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I will and have voted on topicality before, but I also understand how FW debate has been used to silence alternative styles of debating. What this means is that I’ll evaluate T on offense/defense - as long as you give me a clear picture about why the standards are important to fairness/education and how these benefits outweighs any of the aff’s impact turns on the T she’ll, then we’ll be good.Please don’t be blippy - T debate often happens like so, just make it clear and It’ll do you lots of good.

I’m open to lots of diff t stuff - such as the Reid-Brinkley Three tiered process stuff that’s going around, accessibility arguments, disclosure.

DA/CP: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I was taught stock policy by this one funny norfolk mentor, who always ranted about the Stock issues With that being said, I’ll evaluate CP/DA akin to how policy debators in the past have debated it. I’m cool with that.

Trix: X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Trix are anti-educational - due to an over focus on semantics that is exclusionary to ELL debators, and a heavy emphasis on technique that is exclusionary to debators with dis/abilities, I won’t evaluate trix.

Okay so note on spreading - there’s a distinction between speed reading and spreading that is found on the nat circuit. I’m leaning more towards pretty quick speed reading - I may miss things if you spread. Most of all make sure your opponent isn’t excluded in your in round practices. I used to hate spreading because of not being able to understand things, but now listening to circuit debators I really think it’s just a clarity thing cuz debators were just not being clear.

Old Paradigm (2019-2021)~~~~~~~~

policy read this -

I'm cool with k's/k aff's/or very stock policy debate.

I have a leaning towards K's, but equally said, I love it when stock policy aff's have substantial meaningful engagment with K. I'll vote for a da, t, really whatever you give me. Sorry this is short, but i can answer more questions and also i forgot to write a paradigm.

If you were to read anything on my paradigm please look at these three things first.

1) No spreading at all. Here's why: Debate has become a hyper-competitive activity. Debaters don’t get better at uncovering the truth or debating, they become better at winning debates. The hyper-competitiveness of debate has pushed the development of itself toward a technique-orientation. In the final analysis, the rounds are not about the truth and passion of your arguments, it’s about how many arguments you can put down, how fast you debate, analytical tricks you hide in your case, and your ability to extemp answers on the spot. This high standard of professionalism and prioritization of technique over truth leads to an exclusionary space. It constantly skills checks debators – excluding debators with disabilities and shutting out truthful arguments that don’t conform to norms. As a judge, I am obligated to disincentive ableism in all its manifestations. I want to change my community for the better. Although spreading is a norm in both LD and Policy, in order for debate to be a truly educational and inclusive space I must be diametrically opposed to it. Moreover, spreading excludes debators who don't speak english as a first language. I had many friends who weren't considered "successful" in this activity because they couldn't keep up. With this in mind, I am wholly truth over technique. Even if you don't word an argument in the most fluent way, I will still give it credence when I see you try your best to explain something to the fullest. What matters to me in debate, is not how many arguments you can dish out, but how you carry through with your arguments, how you defend them, and how you develop them within the round.

2) I have a high standard for quality of evidence. If you read to me a bunch of extinction impacts with highly suspect warrants, I will, on face, throw the impacts away. Here's why: Extinction impacts have become oversaturated in the debate space in both policy and LD. Once again we return to the topic on how debate has become a hypercompetitive activity - it's easy to win off extinction impacts when you can prove the tiniest bit of a risk, even if there is little or no connection between the resolution and the actual terminal impact. This trend in debate suffocates the real and harmful oppression impacts that affects a plethora of disadvantaged groups. In so far as low probability extinction impacts could always be used to make light of tremendously harmful oppression concerns, I have the obligation as an educator to view them with more scrutiny. My requirement is this - in order to have me evaluate your extinction impact you must have tremendously high uniqueness and deliver to me a crystal clear scenario-link chain. I will be flowing every single sentence of your warrant.

3) If you are gonna make a bunch of turns and analytics, they must be as clear as day. I want your arguments to be fully developed. Please explain fully how something is a turn, rather than merely labeling it as one. If these turns and analytics aren't sufficiently warranted I won't be able to evaluate them.

LD Debate -

General: I try my best to vote off what I hear in round and to minimize my biases. Even though debate is competitve, be cordial with eachother. Hostility is anti-education and I will intervene if I have to. Genuine engagement with your evidence (don't card dump!) and one another is really important to me.

V/C: I evaluate the round through whatever ethical lens you give me. That can be value/criterion, standard, R.O.B, etc.

Tricks: Blippy arguments make me sad :(.

Affirmative: I think debates are better when Affs are resolutional, but am open to kritial affs.

Topicality: I have a higher threshold in terms of actual abuse, but the opponent has to give reasons as to why potential abuse is bad. I'll vote for topicality based on what ya'll bring to the table.

Kritiks: Those are fine as long as they are coherent. Explain your link, impact, and alternative well to your opponent.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

Hi my name is Arjun(they/them)

-Millard North '23; UNL '27

-I'm a Biochem major and don't think about debate a lot, chances are my topic knowledge is negative. Be clear, and clarify the acronyms please and thank you.

-LD/Policy

-3 Years of Debate: 3 LD, 1 Policy {3rd year was mixed} I'm very flex when it comes to speeches --- I have given all possible speeches from the 1A to the 2NR.

-I have competed in all events tho

-A few achievments of mine, not that it matters: broke at a handful of natcirc tournaments and got to a couple bid rounds but never really got a bid cuz no sweating senior year! I was also the Policy State Champion among others.

-I now debate NFA-LD (One person policy) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and dabble into some NDT tournaments sometimes.

=====Pref Shortcut=========

1: Policy, T, Theory [See: RVIs]

2: K [There is a rank of Ks I'm familiar with in the K section]

3: Phil [This is solely because of how people explain phil in debate - I will not use outside knowledge for you.]

4: Trix (I do not dislike tricks. I will vote on them, however these debates are often just blipstorms that end up being really messy. I just don't think they're strategic or good arguments)

====Houston Update: HS CX=====

I am very unfamiliar with acronyms/jargon y'all r using, do some explanation of the complex economic phenomenon if you are reading some complex economic analysis with heavy procedure and/or a process cp abt how the govt should pass the AFF. I have topic knowledge, but treat me as a novice with regards to the meta and the jargon. (For some base line, you do NOT need to explain what the gini coefficient is).

Start the speech with 70% speed, and gradually increase it. I am not that fast at typing and if I miss something thats on you. Pls be clear:)

Good with 9 off go crazy make the round interesting, make me happy or entertained and I will reward you with speaks.

==========================

Actual paradigm:

-Important things are bolded.

-Tech > Truth

-Scroll down to know debate opinions

Random thoughts, DOs and DON'Ts:

-Will judge your speech docs. Aesthetic documents and good organizing will be rewarded. Bad docs won't be punished but will defo make me cringe/annoyed at worst.

-Again, it's kinda sad that I have to say this, but DON'T make args that make the debate space unsafe. I will literally drop you so fast if I think you are being racist/sexist/queerphobic and all those bad things and end all your hopes of winning a speaker award with that too.

- UPDATE: DO NOT IMPACT TURN COLONIALISM. I will intervene and demand an explanation. Please use your common sense regarding what parts of Ks to turn. (Y'all think this is a joke I'm being serious I have seen this happening)

That's it. Expect feedback and ask questions after the round(even if you won, this is bolded for a reason). The judge is a resource you can use on improving yourself. I will accept post rounding; honestly I get it lol anger is justified if you tried your best. Just keep it civil or else i will just walk out of the room.

=====Novices======

A few words of advice before the round:

-Idc if you want to send the doc or no but if you are, here's my email, feel free to ask me questions on this email: arjdebate@gmail.com

-Side Note: if we're doing email chain: PLEASE use word. I hate google docs for debate, the docs are always so janky. If you're sending it over and are still using docs for some reason, Make sure that your opponent can highlight, download, access the doc, whatnot. I do not wanna see you un-adding people to the doc after the round is over.

-Debate's a game and I appreciate you spending your weekend on this activity. The overall goal for this activity is to have fun and learn. The educational value of debate is precious- try and preserve it. I appreciate jokes during speech and all but save the meme stuff for when you're in varsity

-A pet peeve of mine is talking over someone when its not your cx. If its your cx sure cut your opp off your opp should know when you want them to stop talking. You can be firm, but please see to it that your opponent isn't crying. I really do not want to deal with that. If it is not your CX, don't start it or talk over your opponent. I also will probably not be actively paying attention to cross bc i don't care; I will be listening in the background; but if something important is going on just say my name or call me out and I'll start paying attention.

-I recognize that there is no tab judge and all judges have their biases but i will try my best to keep those aside. Mainly I'm more persuaded by descriptive fws and extinction impacts that's all you should know

-Please do not try to go for lay appeal if you are losing the round, I will cringe so hard. I am generally not that persuaded by lay appeals. How you speak will not determine this round for me, but it might get you better speaks.

-Apart from that, you do you, I do not care if you sit/stand, shout, do whatever you want to do with how you speak etc. I want it to be known that the round is a chill area where y'all are having fun, not stressing over folds in your dress or other kinds of nonsense. You are here to debate, and I am here to judge; end of story. I will not vote on things concerning issues outside of that room or concerning how your opponent dresses/talks etc.

================================

-----GENERAL-------

How I will evaluate the debate:

-I am a flow judge: I will vote on what is in my flow. If it isn't; it wasn't clear enough for me (Yes, judges can make mistakes, but I trust myself enough to not make risky decisions). I am more than happy to drop you if I cannot explain the argument I am voting for. [This does not mean I will intervene or am truth > tech, rather that I need a warrant/justification for why I am voting for you. No matter how ridiculous the warrant is, it NEEDS to be there.] Typically, my ballot ends up being for the side that is the easiest path or wins the key argument [The highest layer of the debate] in the round - Be it impact calc, solvency, etc, there needs to be a critical issue in the round that I can pull the trigger on because I do not want to do work --- Water takes the path of least resistance, and so do I.

------------------------

========Defaults===========

-Util

-No RVI

-Competing Interps

-P&P NEG

=========================

Event Specific:

=======LD=======

Start with the highest layer, evaluate the rest later. I will vote for the path of least intervention, I hate intervening and will be instantly displeased if I have to intervene to decide the winner. If it comes to that point, I will be voting on whoever gets presumption.

1] Framework:

-I start my decision with the framing mechanism: I will view the round through your framework if you win it. This doesn't mean you win the debate, just that I will prefer impacts you make. If there is no framework, I will default to consequentialism/util

[Note for TRAD]:

-if you're doing the whole value criterion thing: Please please please please kick the value debate. I do not want to hear a debate on morality vs justice- in debate they're the same thing to me. Also fine w/ single standard stuff if you don't wanna do a v/c. Just lmk how to evaluate the round idc how you do it.

2] Impact Calc:

-After framework, I look to impact calc. Tell me who has the biggest impact, weigh it against your opponents, and PLEASE engage in the line by line.

-I love impact calc debates, please do not try to spoil that for me.

3]Judge instruction:

-Write the ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you.

-If I don't see proper warranting, weighing, etc I vote neg on presumption. Simple. I will not be doing the work for you. Tell me why your case/args matters or I will consider it trash.

===================================

=========Policy============

I know these events are different but I will be evaluating them more or less the same. See debate opinions for specifics. There isn't rlly a framing mechanism for policy except for vs K debates but that's more or less alr addressed.

Give me interesting strats, pls don't go for 9-off ASPEC that isn't impressive at all. I love cheaty cps, be as shameless as you can be. If you are going for 2 Ks pls be aware of how the lit between the 2 interacts, lol pls dont run qp and queer op at the same time. Anything goes, j be nice.

=========================

=========PF&Congress===========

• I have competed in these events but I still don't how these events work. God forbid I judge either of these events, I wish you all the best if I am judging you.
• PFers pls for the love of god almighty read proper cut cards and let me know when you're reading a card vs doing your own commentary.

=============================

Helpers but not Round winners: (from Evan Burns!)

First just please signpost and tell me what argument you are responding to in your rebuttals it makes the round much less messy. If I don't know where to put an argument on the flow it is difficult to evaluate. Signposting only serves to help your arguments make it onto my flow. To incentivize this I will reward you with good speaks for ample signposting and punish you ever so slightly for bad signposting.

In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. "Extend x because it was conceded" is not a warrant I can pull the trigger on; I would prefer to see some effort to address that issue --- it takes 1 second to explain the warrant. I will mark CPs as "dropped" if not extended --- that doesn't mean you lose the argument, j that I will not consider it unless there is a turn on it. If there is a turn on it pls j say concede the turn its condo we're kicking no offence. It takes 2 seconds. Preferably, to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round. The easiest way to do this is to explain why your impacts weigh the highest under both frameworks. I will evaluate the round by looking at which framework wins and then using that framework to see which debater has the most important impacts. This can be easily shown to me by saying at the end of the round, "Judge you vote Aff/Neg because x outweighs under y framework because of abc."

=====Debate Opinions========

-I recognize that there is no tab judge and all judges have their biases but i will try my best to keep those aside.

-Presumption

Alr. Lets address this: Both Presumption & Permissibility go NEG unless otherwise told. I am easily convinced for either side, the argument j needs to be there. But my default will always go NEG unless there is another argument. Yes, even if the neg reads an alternate advocacy.

-Theory & trix:

- I will vote on it. However, if you want to go down this path and cannot execute it properly, your chances at the ballot, and a speaker award will go down drastically. But, proper execution will be rewarded with a W and high speaks. Do not pretend as if you do not know your own lit when asked about it in cross: you should be prepared to debate/explain what you said in the 1NC/AC. If you can't, then don't read it --- It's that simple. Please try to be genuine to opponents who are unfamiliar with your lit, it's the least you can do.

- I default no RVIs for LD and Policy. It will be tough for me to buy an RVI in LD but it's possible based on the egregiousness of the shell. In Policy I will never vote on an RVI, sorry lol.

- If someone reads trix against you, make an RVI against every single one of them!

- Not of a fan of traditional tricks, be creative and you might j impress me. No, I don't like determinism. If it is conceded, you still have to win presumption/permissibility.

Ks:

Sure.

Make sure to have a ROTB, alt etc

ROTB should preferably not be impact justified. But, if you impact turn cap and lose the ROTB, I still have no choice but to vote neg [yes, i know that the ROTB then justifies a bad thing, but unless that argument is made, I cannot make that argument for you. This arg should not be hard for you to win if you are winning the impact turn].

You need to win the alt or the K is fundamentally NUQ. [Unless ofc the k is some sort of a reps K]

Not a fan of PIKs [Unless creative]

Specific links > Generic links

Link turns the case is an excellent argument that is very underused.

You need to win a risk of Impact D to prove a link to the security K.

Out-framing your opponents is a key part of this strategy. Don't be afraid to say outrageous things on the framework page lol. At the same time, be prepared to debate those outrageous statements.

AFF should probably get to weigh the case against the K. [Unless you are winning FW which is not hard for me to flip either side of the aisle]

For larpers trying to impact turn Ks with heg good all that, pls pls establish how it turns the K. Don't just read heg good and expect me to vote for you on it. [Again, needs to be properly executed. I will not hack for you if you run with "extinction outweighs haha!" with 0 warrants and fail to engage with anything]

For reference, I have delved a lot into K theory. Chances are whatever K you are reading, I am familiar with it or have seen it being read. I am comfortable with most Ks on this ranking:

Note: Don't just read this and bust out the baudrillard NC, I will not hack for you if you read nonsense. I still need to understand what you are saying and I will not fill in the gaps for you.

1: PoMo, Stock Ks and Queer Theory [Muñoz, Edelemen, Edelmen spinoffs, Baedan, Bataille, Baudy, Psycho and psycho spinoffs [race, existentialism etc], Cap and its spinoffs [Anarchism, Marx, Bifo etc], SetCol, Fem IR, security, etc

2: Queer Theory[Puar specifically] Afropess(Not bc I don't like it, I j don't know enough and by far am not an expert on this part of literature)

3: Reps Ks. Unless something egregious has happened that warrants intervention, I will not be happy listening to reps Ks, word PIKs etc. If you get up in the 1AR and read a new reps k and you end up linking to it, you will get an L20.

4: Weird Ks,

These Ks make me cringe but I will still vote on it: Deleuze[If you can explain deleuze properly yes, its a 1. I have a HIGH threshold for explaining deleuze. PLS don't make use of jargon that you and I both don't know] [If you read tankie stuff it will leave a distaste in my mouth.], Schopenhauer as a K doesn't make much sense to me, Berlant, Lenin(Seriously wtf), Orientalism(pls j read a security K), IR Ks (Grove, Lib Mil, etc), Asian Ks, Asian pess(seriously?) and the Death K(policy i know i just killed all your ground).

If debated evenly i think condo justifies a perfcon

-K Affs and Tfwk

I slightly lean neg on fwk unless you impact turn fwk which I will then weigh on an equal level. [I love impact turns]

If you are going to run a k aff in front of me, please impact turn tfwk instead of insisting that your aff is topical. I find impact turns to t much much more persuasive rather than obscure definition debates about the k interpretation of the topic or whatever.

CI must exist. You should defend an alternate model distinct from being T.

I will weigh the CI and the shell on the same level unless told otherwise

No RVIs on T. Counter standards aren't Voting issues. The inevitable silencing/exclusion DA should have proper warranting.

Good tfwk debates must answer the question "why" on multiple levels [Why in debate, why this round, why this ballot, what will Arjun's ballot change etc], "what debate should be/ should be instead" and contest the spillover claim if made.

I'm slightly more comfortable with the fairness side of the debate since that is what I always went for; but I'm cool with the education/testing 2nr too. I like the testing DA on an education 2nr.

Prevent the 2AR from pulling an is/ought fallacy

-Random thoughts on authors and other phil stuff:

I'm comfortable enough with a lot of authors to competently evaluate a round. While I haven't read these positions, I do a lot of outside debate reading of these authors and will be sad if you butcher these:(

To name a few authors like Kant, camus, sartre, macintyre, civic republicanism, Hobbes some random other phil authors. -I LOVE DESCRIPTIVE FWS! But, I will not automatically hack for you if you run these positions. You will be held to a standard.

I don't have much familiarity with Nietzsche, policy kids: don't j read my paradigm and pull out some quirky ass K.

-LARP/Policy Stuff

-Huge fan. Most of my debate career involved this kind of debate.

CP/DA:

Starting with CP section:

-Yes! love them.

-Loooove GOOD conditions CPs. [If it has an actual solvency advocate]

-Cheaty Process CPs are very nice. I mostly lean neg on theory

-Not a fan of Delay.

-Perms vs 16 plank adv CPs or artificially competing CPs are not intrinsic. But, this argument has to be made in round, and warranted properly.

-Must have a NB.

Thoughts on competition:

-CP solvency. As long as it solves enough [establish sufficiency framing in round] of the aff and has a NB. Not a huge fan of textual competition, chances are if the CP competes f'nally I'm more likely to lean NEG. Real world explanation is a good litmus test --- don't j say stuff like oh climate change is an issue? CP: USFG should solve climate change. "Aff solves better" is not a real argument---Find a different deficit.

-Neutral on limited intrinsicness. It kinda depends on the cp ig? Be prepared to defend a brightline

-Aff needs to be able to defend an oppurtunity cost.

-If the NB isn't intrinsic/germane to the aff, I give the aff more leeway for the perm ("limited intrinsicess"). The more germane the NB is, the more I lean neg.

Condo:

I don't like the "1 vs 2 off" condo debate. That brightline is sooooo arbitrary. Don't be a coward, defend condo good/bad as a whole.

Slight neg bias, but its a sliding scale: the more conditional advocacies, the more I will give aff leeway with condo. In LD 3+ condo is probably the brightline for me where I will start giving the aff some sort of credence. Policy i kinda dont care

DA:

-Love 'em.

-Sucker for turns/ows case. [Again, needs to be properly executed. I will not hack for you if you run with "extinction outweighs haha!" with 0 warrants and fail to engage with anything]

-Impact calc wins debates --- make sure yours does.

-Establish the link. UQ probably controls the link. Zero risk is probably a thing [unless told otherwise].

T/Topicality:

-Love to see it.

-Nebel/Subsets sucks.

-Legit T shells and clashy debates on T make me very happy.

-No RVIs on T.

-If the 2NR is going for T, the entire 2nr should probably be on T.

-The winner of the T debate wins the round: aff doesn't have to extend case if it is dropped.

-Idc if you read T as a timesuck. I used to do it all the time lol

==============

good luck.

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.

Hi, I'm Lily Saker (she/her)

I'm a semi-recent college grad who studied cyber security and data analytics at UNO, but I now work in legal as a mediator/investigator of civil rights at the NEOC. I've been out of the debate world for a bit, so please go easy on me, debate has changed a lot!

For the email chain: lilyannsaker@gmail.com (I expect you to file share with everyone for debates)

My debate background:

Policy debate:

2014-2017 at Millard North

2013-2014 at Westside

Lincoln Douglas:

2011-2013 at Fremont-Mills Middle School

As a debater I often went for: Critical Affs, Ks (fem, setcol, queerness, ableism, foucault, ranciere, etc.), CPs, floating PICs

How I vote:

- Despite my past experience, please still assume that I may not know your jargon or literature that you may be referencing. I prefer explanation over quick blips and shadow extending. I try to give queues during the debate, i.e. head nodding if I'm understanding you, or looking puzzled if I'm not following. I'm open to questions being asked during prep as well.

- It really helps me if you focus in rebuttals on an argument that you're going for then impacting it, e.g. what does this argument mean for debate? for the round? for the learning in the round? for the debaters education? what exactly is the judge doing? is this abusive or good? why?

- I appreciate when debaters start their rebuttals with overviews/big picture analysis before going to the line by line on each flow.

- Speed is fine, I'm a former policy debater and this was my norm. Please slow down for tags though. Clarity > speed.

- Tech > Truth, I will vote based on who is winning the flow. If your opponent makes a concession, address that and tell me why it's meaningful to the debate.

- Please signpost and make it clear what argument you are responding to, it will make it hard for me to evaluate these arguments otherwise.

- Speaks can be arbitrary and kind of ableist, so the only reason I'd give lower speaks is for being rude to the other team.

- I do not take into consideration how you talk/are dressed/if you stand or sit/etc. I'm here to focus on the arguments in the debate, that's it.

At the end of the day I think debate should be a fun and welcoming place for all individuals, so disrespectful comments/attitude won't be tolerated. Please feel free to ask me any questions inside or outside the round!

Pronouns: He/him/his

I would strongly prefer us to use SpeechDrop but my email: zeinsalehemail@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

K- 1

T/Theory/Policy- 2

Phil- 2/3

Tricks- Strike

Background: 5 years of LD/NFA-LD @ Lincoln North Star & UNL. Competed on the local + national circuit. NE state champion in 2021 and 2022.

As a debater I often went for: Critical/Soft Left Affs, CPs/DAs, Ks (Islamophobia, Cap, Militarism), T, and a tiny bit of phil (Prag, Particularism).

Tech > Truth

Summary: ***Generally, read whatever you want. I have my preferences but feel free to convince me differently. I will ultimately vote off the flow and what arguments are best warranted/extended by the end of the round.

Disclaimer: Debate should be an educational and safe space for all students. Any exclusionary rhetoric will obviously not be tolerated. You should give content warnings for graphic depictions of violence and be accessible to students who need accommodations.

Disclosure is good. I will vote on disclosure theory.

Speed: 7-8 is fine if you are clear. It is in your favor to slow down on tags, interps, plantexts, analytics etc. Signpost. Pause for a second between different sheets.

Policy: Go for it. Good Impact turn debates (dedev, heg bad/good) are interesting. Bad impact turn debates (extinction good) are not. I like unique DAs with strong internal links. I strongly dislike nuclear terrorism scenarios.

Counterplans need a net benefit. PICs, Consult, Agent CPs etc are all fine. Condo is fine, although I'm convinced 2-3+ condo sheets in LD is abusive.

Phil: I didn’t read much phil in high school but am familiar with some authors (Rawls, Hobbes, Kant, Butler, Mcintyre, Levinas). Please slow down on analytical justifications for your framework. I think you should have some offense under your framework rather than two sentences that relate to the topic.

Tricks: No. Also not a fan of permissibility, moral skepticism, or other similar LD shenanigans. Make real arguments.

T/Theory: Go for it. I don't need "proven abuse." Default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, and no RVI (which is silly).

Kritiks: I enjoy K v Policy debates. However, you should have specific links to the aff and don’t assume I know your lit. 2NR overviews are fine but you also need to do line by line or I find collapsed 2AR perms/link turns/weighing persuasive. I think the aff should explain the world of the perm in the 2AR. I am a fan of alt solves case and serial policy failure arguments. I need significantly more explanation for abstract post-modern kritiks. Tell me what your alternative does.

I am familiar with: Identity/Reps Ks (Islamophobia/Orientalism, Set Col, Fem, Anti-blackness/Afropess, Queer Theory etc), Biopolitics, Cap, Militarism

I am a little bit/vaguely familiar with: Puar, Deleuze, Weheliye

I generally dislike/don’t care to learn about: Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Bataille.

I am fairly convinced by speaking for others arguments.

Kritikal Affs vs Framework: I like these debates. Typically, a counterinterp with answers on standards is more convincing to me than impact turns, but I can also be persuaded by a good collapse on framework. I think critical education is a much more convincing 2NR voter than appeals to procedural fairness. I also find most TVAs are overrated, almost never solve the aff, and are entirely defensive. The farther the aff is from the topic, the more convinced I am by T.

Other LD stuff: I don't care if you sit or stand. I’d prefer you do line-by-line analysis in later speeches than give me random voters.

Please ask me if you have any questions. Good luck, have fun!

Pronouns: she/they

Add me to the email chain- brtdebate@gmail.com

(speech drop is fine too)

^ I expect docs to be shared in the round in some way, shape, or form. (That is especially true for online debate). Flashing cases is the bare minimum. IMO if you're refusing to flash cases, that's sketch af and I'm probs gonna think you miscut your evidence if you refuse to show it to me.

*the exception is performance/narrative stuff, y'all do your thing

—TLDR—

tech>>>truth

I’m a first year out from the NE LD circuit and now do NFA-LD (some NDT-CEDA). I'm open to evaluating nearly anything that is presented to me. I'm familiar with policy args, theory/T, k's/k affs, performance stuff, etc.

***Don't think I will refuse to evaluate/tank speaks if I watch trad debate. I'm here to judge what's presented to me and judges who refuse to listen to certain types of args (unless they're offensive and harmful to ppl) is ridiculous.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask whenever!

——EXPERIENCE——

LD at Lincoln Southwest HS (2019-2023)

Here's my wiki from my senior year of HS:

https://opencaselist.com/hsld22/LincolnSouthwest/BrTe

NFA-LD (and some NDT-CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2023-Present)

Here’s my current NFA wiki:

https://opencaselist.com/nfald23/Nebraska-Lincoln/BrTe

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest HS (2023-Present)

Folks who shaped my views of debate: Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Cami Smith, Nick Wallenburg, Colten White,

—PREF SHEET—

K - 1

Performance - 1

LARP/Policy/DAs/CPs- 1

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - strike

—SPEAKS—

(from Zach Thornhill's paradigm)

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correctly in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have little to no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

—— LD ——

Speed:

I'm solid with speed. Slow down a bit on tags, T shells, & analytics and we’re chilling.

Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be accommodating to your peers pls.

Theory/Topicality:

Totally good with it. Here are some things to note for me:

Theory should have an interp, standards, and voters that have been extended throughout the debate. I'm not gonna vote for your limits standard if you don't extend the interp (or even worse don't even have one). T/theory is never a reverse voter (i.e. RVIs aren't real). Needing proven abuse is silly. Affs that say don't vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterterms that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad, then warrant that out in the standards debate. Disclosure is generally good IMO, but you gotta win the theory debate here. I'll vote for theory out of the 1ar.

DA’s/CP’s/PIC’s:

Good with em.

Please have an explicit counterplan text. I've seen "counterplans" that think they can fly without one, but if I don't know explicitly what the CP does, I can't vote for it. Same goes with a net benefit, idk how some of y'all think a cp without one is at all competitve.

I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove the cp to be competitive (as long as there’s a perm on the CP).

If the CP is dispo, you better be able to explain what that means to your opp because no one has a common definition of what it is.

Kritikal stuff:

Good with em, ran em a lot.

Lit I've run and I'm familiar with: Fem/FKJ (Ahmed), Biop/Necro (Foucault, Mbembe, etc), Cap, Set Col

Bottom line: you should know your lit and be able to explain it to me and your opponent.

***note for performance stuff:

Performance stuff is cool. I’ve seen/ran poetics, music, story-telling, dance, and narrative-based performance & am def willing to vote on it.

Phil:

I never really ran it and don’t love phil debate, but I’ll obvi evaluate it. I have surface-level understandings of some phil (absurdism, existentialism, Kantian ethics, etc), but don’t expect me to know your phil for you. Make sure you can explain it to me & your opponent.

—— POLICY ——

Most of the prog LD stuff should apply here. I haven't judged much hs policy so my topic knowledge/ knowledge of hs norms is somewhat limited.

If you have any other questions that aren’t answered, feel free to ask before the round!

—— PF ——

If for some reason the tourney put me in PF, know that I have limited experience with this event and know a little about the norms. I’ll do my best to adapt, but I have some non-negotiable preferences.

Make sure you have warrants for your arguments, just making baseless assertions is not enough for me.

I’m not a fan of paraphrasing, cite your evidence in correctly cut cards that are preferably shared with everyone.

I’ll evaluate theory in the same way I would in LD/Policy so refer to that :) I'm also probs a good judge for feedback on that front.

——————

All in all, good luck and have fun! Always feel free to come up and ask me any questions before or after the round :)

Please do not read arguments that can be interpreted as glorifying suicide. This is a specific vein of death good that I do not want to hear. If you have questions, please ask before round.

I EXPECT YOU TO USE SOME WAY TO FILE SHARE FOR ALL DEBATES!!! THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS.

Disclosure updates in things i vote on section

I prefer for us to use speechdrop.net for file sharing but if we have to use one, add me to the email chain: dieseldebate@gmail.com

"debate is bigger than any one person. I believe in debate. I believe in the debate community. I believe that debate is one of the most valuable educational programs in the country and I am proud that it is my home."- Scott Harris

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college??? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. We have scholarships for dedicated debaters who want to invest in our program and would love to welcome you to our team!

_______________________

Experience:

Competing

2012-2016: Policy Debate at Lee's Summit West High School, 2x national qualifier [Transportation infrastructure, Cuba Mexico Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance]

2016-2020: NFA-LD at University of Nebraska-Lincoln [SOUTHCOMM, Policing, Cybersecurity, Energy]

2020 NFA-LD debater of distinction

Coaching

2018-2019: Justice Debate league Volunteer

2020: Lincoln Douglas Lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Institute

2020-2022: Assistant NFA-LD Coach for Illinois State University

2019-2023: Head LD coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

2022: Lab leader for the Collegiate Midwest Lincoln Douglas Cooperative

2022: Varsity LD and progressive argumentation lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Conference

2022-present: Assistant Director of Debate for the University of Nebraska- Lincoln (NFA-LD, some NDT-CEDA)

individuals who shaped my perspectives on debate: Justin Kirk, Adam Blood, Nadya Steck, Dustin Greenwalt

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Disclosure theory - if you read disclosure on either side and do not have open sources available for both sides on your wiki, I will massively doc your speaks. This argument exists to create better standards for debate. Failure to do so will result in dreadful speaks and a very easy out for your opponent to just say that you did not meet the burdens expressed in your argument.

theory out of 1AC

Speed theory (if justified, see speed section)

Framework v. K affs

Framework turns v. other positions (Ks, DAs, Case args)

CPs in HS LD

CP theory

Ks in HS LD (See K section in policy for specifics)

Speaking for others arguments (There are ways to not make this problematic. However, identity is very individualized and commodification of someone else's identity for your own gain is a problem for me. For instance, do not be a white male debater reading the narrative of a black woman.)

______________

NFA-LD/ Policy

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be respectful of individuals and their experiences.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: needing proven abuse is wrong. Affs that say dont vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterinterps that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad then warrant that out in the standards debate. I do say if you want to win T you need to go all in in the NR and win the full shell. When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. That being said I don't see theory as a means of winning the ballot. It is just a means of getting me to not evaluate an argument. This can be changed though. I have done a lot of weighing condo bad v. T. Theory v. theory is always a fun time. Warrant out why some shells are weighed first in the round and explain to me how different shells interact with each other. T is never a reverse voter though and neither is theory. Predictability is not determined by whether or not something is on the wiki or if you have seen it before. Predictability is based on whether or not an interpretation is predictable given the resolution. The same goes for reasonability. Negs who read T should be able to provide a TVA or establish that the education we get from judging the 1AC is bad for the topic.

DISADS: Run them. This is one of my favorite arguments to see and evaluate. I think it is the best way to establish comparative offense. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really ran them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.) I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove them to be competitive as long as there’s a perm on the CP.

KRITIKS: I like the k debate and will vote for them but explain the literature. I have read some of the authors including Deleuze and Guattari, Puar, D’andrea, Ahmed, Wilderson, Tuck and Yang, and most of the authors that relate to neoliberal subjectivity as it applies to consumption. I have also seen antiblackness and afropessimism rounds that I have enjoyed a lot. But that does not mean I am entirely up to date on the newest literature or how your lit plays into the round. Just explain it to me. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. Affs should either have a plan text or an advocacy statement as to what they do. I don't like performance debate as much as just reading the cards, however I have voted for poetry performance in rounds. I will listen to identity args. Race, disabilty, and queer lit are all acceptable in front of me and I can/ will evaluate them. Neg should be able to defend alt solvency. I am not going to automatically grant that. I will not kick the alt for you. saying "if you do not buy the alt kick it for me" is not an argument. If you do not explicitly say "kick the alt" or something of that nature I will evaluate the alternative. If it does not solve then I will be persuaded by risk of aff offense. I also want to point out that P.I.L. was correct, Anger is an Energy. If structures upset you, feel free to rage against them. This can include the debate, economic, racial, gendered, and other spaces. If you are oppressed and you are angry about it, I will not limit your ability to angrily refute the system.

K's that I am v familiar with: SetCol, Cap, Afropess, fem, ableism, militarism, Biopower/ Necropower, Islamophobia

k's that I know a bit less: queer theory, Baudrillard

CASE: I am always here for the growth, heg, and democracy bad debates as well as the prolif good ones. My strategy typically was to go T, K, O so I enjoy hearing why heg is bad and how the alt avoids it and how the aff isnt topical.

PRESUMPTION: I will not vote for terminal defense on the flow. I need an offensive reason to vote for you. Whether that be a disad, K, or advantage I need something to evaluate to give me a reason to reject the other team. Find it, win it, and extend it. Also, do the calculus for me of what impacts matter and why they matter. When I do the calculus I look to magnitude, timeframe, and probability. Explain why you fit into those please.

CONDO: I find it disingenuous to read more than one condo advocacy in one round in NFA. You can do it if you win the theory debate but I will be more lenient to theory in a world of multiple conditional advocacies. If you are running multiple advocacies please make it only be CPs. I don't want to see a CP and K in a round because almost always the CP will link to the K and I think that's cheating. That is different for policy and I consider it much more debatable then.

PLANLESS AFFS: I believe the aff should do something. How that happens is up to the aff. I do not reject planless affs on face but they should at least have an advocacy. otherwise, I am persuaded by vote neg on presumption because the aff functionally does nothing. arguments about the importance of rhetorical challenges is a way to do this.

_________

HS-LD

For any arguments that relate to it see above. In terms of how I evaluate LD rounds I rely heavily on the framework debate to determine how I will evaluate the round. Pay it it's due and try to win it. However, if you are able to show how your arguments fall into your opponents’ framework then I will be willing to vote for you if they win the framework shell. Also please clash with each other. I have seen too many rounds where each speech is just explaining 1ACs and 1NCs and I don't have a specific reason to vote against one or the other. At that point my personal morals let me decide how I feel about the topic. You don't want that. I don't want that.

I think a lot of LD debaters fail to recognize the importance of uniqueness to their arguments. If the squo is in the direction of the arg you are talking about, you need to prove uniqueness for whatever point you are making.

I tend to default to the idea that Fiat does not exist in HSLD until I am told otherwise. This is an easy arg to make especially with a res that uses the word "ought".

I am more progressive when it comes to LD due to my policy background. This means PICs, Ks, CPs and DAs are all acceptable. weigh them and explain the args as they apply to the aff case.

Phil cases and I do not get along very well. It confuses me and I find that debaters are not the best at explaining philosophy in the limited amount of time we have in debate rounds.

I prefer single standard debate as well. Death is bad and morality is good (but subjective) I dont need a specific mechanism for how we prevent or entrench one or the other. if you read it thats fine but I probably won't look at it that much unless you thoroughly explain it to me.

how to pref me

policy style args (CP, K, DA)-1

Theory-1

phil-3

tricks-these are typically not arguments and hold minimal weight for me

______________________________

PF

If you have me in the back of the room for NSDA most likely it will be for public forum. That being said, I am not extremely experienced when it comes to public forum debate. I have coached and debated it in an extremely limited capacity but have substantial experience in other formats. The debate is yours but I have a few things that ought to be known before you walk into the room and start doing your thing.

1. Debate is a game of comparative warrants and impacts. Too many people in PF try to rely on just making claims without substantiating those claims with proper warrants. Just giving me a number is insufficient to prove the causality of an argument. I need to understand what the reasoning is behind WHY a number exists.
2. Uniqueness MATTERS! I have seen too many debaters (in all activities) fail to explain the uniqueness of their claims and arguments. The resolution provides an overarching truth claim that provides some direction as to how the world reorients itself post implementation. What does each world look like and how is it a shift to the status quo?
3. Evidence is incredibly important to me. If you choose to paraphrase, it will negatively impact your speaker points. I emphasize the use of actual properly cut cards in PF. I understand this is not a common practice so if I ask for evidence that you have read, you need to be able to provide the source and the lines where your arguments came from. Failure to do this will result in me not evaluating an argument, filing an ethics complaint, and tanking your speaks. Don't plagiarize or lie to me in a debate.
4. Speaker position does not influence me too much. I keep a rigorous flow that consists of all of the arguments made by both teams. You should pref the side you want before picking the order in front of me.
5. PLEASE provide an actual impact in debates. most PF rounds I have judged do not express an actual impact story and get stuck at internal links. you need a reason that your contentions are a problem
6. Finally, for any of it that applies above, please consult my LD and policy sections of my paradigm to see if any arguments should or should not be read at this tournament. Also, ask any questions that you may have before the round. I enjoy talking to people and hope to enjoy the debate you present me with.

__________________

At the end of the day it is my job to sit in the back of the room and listen to discourse on the issues presented. It is your job to determine how that discourse happens. Just because I say I do or do not like something should not change your strategy based on the round. I have voted for things I never thought I would and have changed my opinions about things a lot. I give higher speaks to anyone who can read my paradigm and change my opinion or do something that is incredibly intelligent in round. Do what you are comfortable with and I will adjudicate it based on what is in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me. I only bite on tuesdays. Pref me a 1 and I'll be able to give you an experienced and fairly well rounded and open round.

Keeping this specific and on-topic

To give a brief summation of my background, I was a varsity competitor in LD who competed in Nebraska. I am currently pursuing a dual-major Sociology and Anthropology degree, and as such tend to work best in the realm of how philosophical concepts are applied to reality.

Regardless, I'm willing to hear out any number of points so long as the evidence used is both warranted and follows a consistent internal logic. If you are going to run a specific case, run that case instead of trying to haphazardly stick evidence where it does not belong. (Basically, create a clear link between events that implies causation rather than correlation.)


Non-Standard Frameworks: When it comes to Kritik and Theory, I am also willing to hear you out, but justify them well. I am not going to just believe something because you said it, persuade me as an audience member if you are going to tell me that my vote somehow has ramifications extant to the round. Explain why the rules are unfair, give me a justification for its impact on the round, and then sell me on that idea as opposed to a general weighing mechanism.

Dress: I don't care, it's not my job to tell you whether or not you're professionally dressed. Your words are the main thing I'm here to evaluate.

Disclosure-based Argumentation: Norfolk Senior High (the school I attended) was by no means a large school, and arguments of non-disclosure being an issue for smaller schools will not win me over easily. If you are going to argue Disclosure with me as a judge, it better be warranted extremely well. I will not drop you for running it (my position as a judge doesn't let me write off things that I've never heard), but if I am to believe that my vote as a judge should influence the world external to the round, then I should understand how and why a third-party wiki is supposed to be a benefit to the debate space.

Vocal Delivery: I am not too critical of superficial things such as stuttering or struggling to pronounce lengthy words. So long as you complete your argument, I don't mind.

That being said, please be articulate when reading. I only flow what I can understand as an observer, so spread at your own risk. You can ask me to call out to you if I'm no longer following if that helps you to stay on pace. Sharing your case on a speechdrop may also be of use if you need to read quickly, just please don't use it as a catch-all.

Evidence / Tagging: Common sense applies here mostly. Please tag cards appropriately, give author and year (month may also be good), and make sure you are explaining your evidence without cherry-picking facts and statistics from your source. If someone calls you out on using a source which is also highly critical of your advocacy, it doesn't look great for your credibility.

Framework Arguments: Clarity is the word of the day here. I love heady and incredibly abstract framework, but it should be explained in such a way that I understand how and why you are specifically using it.

If you are going to use something, define it in your case please. I have seen too many cases where the framework uses a value that has no specific definition with the expectation that the criterion will explain the value. In these cases, I will more likely than not have to end up evaluating your case as a single-standard.

Similarly, if you have a very complex framework, explain it in detail. I should at least have a baseline enough knowledge to understand why it is both important and topical.

Note: If you put an asterisk-style argument where I am not allowed to vote for the opponent for x reason, warrant this out as well. If it's just there and you don't explain why specifically it needs to be, I probably will not care enough to weigh it.

Case-level Arguments: I tend to be very perceptive to specific and well-explained impacts. I also tend to be very critical of hyperbolic impact chains that lead to annihilation of some sort.

Rhetorical usage of multitudinous impacts tends to spread them thin for me. Go all in on a few key points.

TL;DR: I'm pretty open to new and different styles of argument, just make sure that your arguments are well-warranted and have specific impacts.

Contacting Me: If you, or a coach, needs to get a hold of me to ask for some clarification on a specific judging decision, you can reach me at RaderaFiskan@gmail.com

Best of luck to the competitors!

Here are my paradigms for various events. If you have any questions feel free to ask for clarification in round.

PF paradigm

I am a former PFer and so I am familiar with the event. I competed for 4 years and I am pretty easy going as for judge preferences. I flow the round, but I do really like to see weighing, sign posting throughout the round and voters in the summary and final focus. I am okay with some speed, but this is not policy or LD so don't go over the top.

Congress Paradigm

I competed a bit in Congress in high school and am familiar with the event. I also have 2 years organizing a youth congress program in Iowa. I am looking for organization in speeches, and also prefer if you speak with limited notes rather than read word for word.

LD Paradigm

I have judged some LD and competed about 2-3 times in high school, but I still consider to be a lay judge. I do flow though, but please provide clear extensions.

Speech Paradigm

For Public Address/ Limited Prep speeches, I like seeing organization in the speeches, and for events such as oratory a clear argument

For Interp. I prefer seeing clear character pops and smooth transitions between characters.

Tell me which time signals you want otherwise I will typically give just 2 down for interp/ public address events and then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in extemp.

Hey, I'm Julia, or Jules. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Lincoln East High School in the middle of nowhere Nebraska a couple years ago. I was involved in debate my junior and senior years and only did LD. I'm now a student at UNL double-majoring in Animal Science and Fisheries & Wildlife.

My email is julia.r.zeleny@gmail.com. Include me in file sharing things please. I generally think file sharing is pretty based so I'd recommend doing it especially if you're gonna be spreading.

Debate is fun so keep it fun. No racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. content. Also, you absolutely have to give trigger warnings, no matter how brief and non-descript your graphic content is.

I don't care about y'all dressing nice or standing up and stuff. Do what makes you comfortable.

I mostly ran trad stuff but I have a solid understanding of Ks and how they operate in a round. I'm a sucker for cap bad and ecocentrism. Util is boring as hell, but if you run it well, I'll still vote for it. I don't know much about theory unless it's related to in-round accessibility, though, so don't read me that. If you aren't sure, just ask. I'll let you know if something will go over my head.

I like a good, clean flow so just respond to arguments and don't drop your case, I guess. Sounds pretty easy, right? So I expect everyone I judge to win. :)

But just like have fun and be nice and we'll get along great.

One of my favorite things about being a competitor was being able to debate others that have a friendly attitude and getting to know my opponents. Speaks are kinda ableist bs anyway, so I'll give y'all 30 speaks if you guys just have a nice conversation during RFD and generally are friendly towards each other. :)