Short and sweet.

I competed in Public Forum debate for Millard North High School on both the Nebraska and National circuit from 2014-2016. I debated in the 2016 Tournament of Champions.

I am a flow judge.

I will weigh impacts the way you tell me to throughout the round, within reason, as long as you tell me why I should.

I will always weigh according to framework - if it flows through the round.

Be prepared to present evidence if the entirety of any contention relies heavily on one card.

I will deduct speaker points for being blatantly rude, but do not have a problem with speakers who are aggressive in their technique and stand their ground.

I have no problems with speed.

If you have any specific questions feel free to ask prior to the round starting.

Nebraska College of Law '24

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

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

she/her

Some preferences:

I am not a fan of speed.

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

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

Signpost after constructive

Pleeeease have your cards/evidence readily available

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

Argumentation/weighing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most importantly: have fun and be respectful!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longform (PF primary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points:

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

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

Competed in public forum for 4 years from 2012-2016 for Lincoln Southwest, dotted with a little Congress debate as well. Competed at the 2015 NSDA national tournament in public forum.

Debate is a fun and educational activity: always keep that in mind :)

Public Forum:

I'm not too particular, just be sure to speak about the impacts of arguments in terms of their magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Synthesize arguments so they're easy to follow throughout the round. Please don't refer to evidence (cards) just by their author name and year.

Other nuances:

1. Cross fire is not factored into the decision in itself. If something arises from cross fire, be sure to bring it up in a speech for it to be weighed

2. Summary and Final Focus are not a time to bring up new arguments. New evidence for existing claims is okay, though.

3. Framework debate interests me a lot - especially when it observes a unique burden to a certain side or points out a key interpretation of the resolution

4. Topicality is essential. If you don't tie your arguments or rebuttal back to the resolution, it's not productive.

5. Carry through arguments through all speeches. If something is dropped in Summary but brought back up in Final Focus, I will not consider it. Similarly, dropped arguments are typically lost arguments, particularly if the other team highlights the dropped argument.

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

Congress:

1. I like when speeches progress the debate. Each speech should add something to the table. On the flip side of things, I generally do not like when your speech just rehashes a point made in a prior speech. If you make reference to a specific piece of evidence mentioned in a prior speech or mention the representative who originally brought up a point and build on it, that's better.

2. I enjoy when insightful questions that advance the topic are asked in the questioning period.

3. Remember that we are debating everything surrounding the legislation at hand. There is great value to negating based on semantics or wording, as it can push for an amendment of the legislation.

4. POs should be fair, correct, and succinct. I don't judge based on how "to-the-book" the PO phrases motions and such. Keep it short and follow the necessary process, but I'm not looking for exact wording.

5. Use evidence in your speeches.

6. Logic and arguments over presentation. Please have clear claims, warrants, and impacts. If you can weigh your impacts based on magnitude, timeframe, and probability I'll love it.

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

Respect and decorum. Don't talk over your opponent, don't talk/pack up while they're speaking. Cross isn't for arguing.

Updated 4/11/2024

My Background

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

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

General Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional *DEBATE* Specifics

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

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

Public Forum Specifics

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

Lincoln Douglas Specifics

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

Policy/Chicago Debates Specifics

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

I was debating when public forum first started, and I have been involved with it ever since. As such, I've tried to keep in mind the original spirit of PF while adjusting for what I feel are inevitable aspects of the current nature of the event.

-I think a good PF round should be able to be understood by any average person who reads a lot of news. I expect that an intelligent person, if paying close attention to the round, should be able to follow along while receiving a good understanding of subject material.

-I dislike lying. If it comes out that you are making up something that is clearly not inferable from your evidence, and you are called out on it, I will trust your interpretation of facts slightly less for the rest of the round.

-I am a PF coach, so I usually am versed enough in the topic to give a decent topic analysis. (If it's a foreign policy topic I'm probably not going to fall for BS, but if it's an economics topic you might be able to trick me.) It is okay to speak at a level of assumed basic facts about the resolution, but I will not give unexplained link chains and warrants very much weight.

-Speed is not preferred, but I can usually follow along, and it won't necessarily cost you. If you want to guarantee I catch everything on my flow, don't go too fast.

-Remind me of claim/warrant/impact structure in each speech. I expect robust explanations of these in constructive, and an incorporation of a brief summation of each argument from which you are trying to achieve impacts throughout the round. Simply repeating the names of cards without context might not register very heavily with me.

-I don't flow crossfire really, but I do pay attention to establishment of weighing mechanisms, definitions, moral playing fields, framework agreements, etc., and accept an agreement in crossfire as standing unless nullified in a following speech.

-Don't belittle your opponents personally, for any reason. I know debates get heated and that's ok, just make it about the arguments and not your opponent's intelligence.

-I am used to teams rebuilding in 2nd rebuttal, but it's not necessary if you aren't used to it.

-I get so bored during evidence exchanges. Please keep them necessary and brief. I will accept logical rebukes of your opponent's sources a lot of the time without you having to look at evidence.

-Frameworks need to be responded to, but if you just state it at the beginning of the round and then never mention it again until final focus, I'm probably not going to factor it very heavily into my decision.

-My biggest areas of knowledge from training or formal education are: Ecology, Foreign Policy, International Relations, World Religions, and Political Philosophy. One of my many jobs is being a market gardener of vegetables and flowers. I'm also an avid forager. I might be especially swayed by widespread geological impacts. I love a good pollinator collapse impact link chain; just terrifying.

-If, hypothetically, a round was tied in every way, I would be fine choosing a winner based on who delivered their arguments with more believability and inspiration. You almost certainly aren't going to lose for delivery, but I really appreciate it when somebody is debating like they actually care about what they are talking about.

Ryan Wiegert- English Teacher/Debate Coach, Millard West

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

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

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

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

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

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

---Specific Style Paradigms---

Congress:

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

Public Forum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- PF --

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

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

-- LD --

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