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

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

My speaker points are generally as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Aff Things:

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

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

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

Neg Things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Things:

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

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

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

I will likely keep track of prep time/speech times

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

Have fun

**Policy Philosophy**

Small update 12/7/2016

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

The rest Updated 10/28/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other stuff:

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

I definitely value 'spin' over evidence.

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY

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

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

Experience: I debated policy for four years at Sioux Falls Washington in SD. During that time, my partner(s) and I were State Champions, took 4th place at Nationals in 2012, and 9th place in 2013. I was also the 14th speaker in the nation my senior year. I now actively judge policy debate in NE and SD. On the Aff, I generally ran policy Aff. On the Neg, I was known for closing for DA/Case, DA/CP/Case, or Topicality.

General Paradigm: Know that I will listen to anything. I am interested in hearing the arguments that you enjoy debating the most. However, if no one in the round tells me how to evaluate, I default to a policymaking framework. Tied into all of this, I care most about warrants and evidence comparison. I prefer to hear well-developed arguments over a spread of warrantless claims and bad evidence. I’m down with speed though.

I care deeply about impact calculus when evaluating rounds. Therefore, I need specificity and comparisons when you are addressing these sort of framing concerns. This is especially important during the final speeches. I do not want to just hear the buzzwords magnitude, probability, and time frame. Extrapolate upon your unique framing.

On specific arguments...

Topicality: When done well, topicality can be a very effective tool. The problem is that many debaters do not know how to debate topicality well. If you’re going to close for T, I prefer that you spend your entire 2NR on the issue. I prefer specific, in-round abuse scenarios, but will vote on potential abuse if well explained. I also generally default to a framework of competing interpretations, valuing teams that can best explicate why their interpretation is valid. Note that I prefer T over generic theory arguments.

Theory: I will evaluate theory, but will say that I do not prefer these debates. Often I just hear blocks read with no real clash and violations that are woefully generic. Additionally, I don’t appreciate really blippy theory arguments early in the round that become round-changing in the rebuttals. Give your theory arguments substance from the beginning. If you’re going to run theory, make sure that it is grounded in what is happening in the round. Again, I prefer in-round abuse scenarios to potential abuse.

CP: I am definitely open to listening to CPs. That being said, make sure that your CP solves part, if not all, of the case advantages. Solvency deficit arguments from the Aff go far for me. It’s the burden of the Neg team to prove CP solvency.

DAs: I am a big fan of disadvantages. I do not have a problem with generic DAs, but prefer the links to be as specific as possible. However, I understand that there is not a lot of literature for diverse DAs this year, and will take that into account. I am always skeptical of internal link scenarios, and the Neg has to do more work here.

Kritiks: As someone who hardly ever ran critical arguments in high school, I will say that I am not as well-versed in K literature as I would like to be. However, in my time judging I have heard a fair number of performance Affs and Ks on the Neg. I am open to hearing these interesting debates, but just require some more warranting/overviews. As such, I will need more explanations of K arguments that might be less commonly run or unique. In particular, I want a focus on the link and alt stories. Most of the time I am highly skeptical of alternatives. If you don’t understand the evidence yourself, don’t run the K in front of me.  

Case: I am a big fan of case debate. I think that it is very important that the Affirmative team takes advantage of their 1AC and utilizes it throughout the round and across flows. There’s a reason you read it for 8 minutes. On the flip side, I really appreciate Negative teams that focus on debating the specifics of advantages and case solvency. You can really bolster your Negative strategy by taking out components of case.

At the end of the day, I want you to debate the round that you want most. As long as you are polite, engaged, and strategic, we should have a fun round!

Include me on email chains - rawme9@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

28.5 is an average debater.

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

email: gradywiedeman@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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