Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what it is. It is not the purpose of this type of debate to identify a solution or a plan to implement in order to fix the resolution. Instead, the purpose is to offer reasoning to support the principle that may be used to guide a decision.

Respect

Respect every judge, coach and opponent. We're all here because we want to be for different reasons. Enjoy the moment and learn from each round. I promise that this experience will resonate throughout your life.

Structure & Framework

This isn't rocket science - if you're going to do something outside of the norm, share that framework as you get started. I will judge on framework. Lincoln Douglas debate has key components of it's structure and I will lean on those components to determine the round.

Hint: the three primary components of the framework include a value premise, value criteria andargumentation.

This is LD debate. It is not Policy, Congress or Public Forum. Pragmatism and solvency are key elements of Policy debate. Having a value, criterion are key argments of your LINCOLN DOULGAS case is why you're here. Have them, defend them and tell me why yours is should be held over all else.

Speaking

Speak clearly, enunciate and be heard. That doesn't mean aggressively interrupting, yelling at or attacking our opponent. Competitive discussion is highly encouraged but attacking your opponent is poor form. If you want to talk at the speed of light, I'm perfectly capable of keeping up. Again...if I can't understand you (or hear you), once again, I can't vote on what you're sharing.

Non-interventionalist

Your job is to tell me what I should vote on. I won't make assumptions or guess where your argument needed to go. It is imperative that you reaffirm your cards and evidence. I also will not share or allow my personal biases to influence my vote. That said - if something is said in a round that is offensive or inappropriate, it will be noted and possibly discussed at the end of the round.

Burden of Proof

Both the affirmative and negative have a burden to prove the argumentation of their case. Both sides have an obligation for resolutional and argumentative decisiveness. The Aff should have the burden to prove the resolution and the Neg should doesn't have to prove that it's false, but it does need to prove that it can't be true. Bottom line - prove to me, and other judges the reason, the logic and the justification of your case.

About Me

I was a LD debater in high school and spent 25 years in Human Resources, and now I am an IT Program Manager (I get to play with cool technology toys). I have had 2 children debate and I love teaching and helping others learn more and become better, stronger communicators. I love judging and giving feedback. After a round if you want more feedback from me, I will always offer something constructive. My goal is simply to enjoy the day and give you tools to be a more effective debater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am and have been the coach at LHS for the last 9 years. I was also the 2021 NSDA's National Coach of the Year.

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

*I will NOT vote on: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, anything other bigotry. Please just be cool people.

*If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.


CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

I'm no longer involved in the debate community. If you're reading this, you're probably in the wrong place.

I used to have a very long, detailed paradigm about how I would allow anything under xyz circumstances. However, after watching a few rounds at a recent tournament, I've changed my paradigm on debate.

I would now like debate to do what debate is meant to do:

Democratically and critically engage with pressing issues.

I will no longer listen to nontopical affirmatives. (Although you're welcome to run questionably topical affirmatives and try to convince me). I will start docking speaker points for incomprehensible speeds and yelling at me or your opponent. I will begin evaluating debates how they are meant to be evaluated, as a question of the resolution.

Experience
I debated 2 years of Public Forum in High School.
I’ve judged mostly high school Lincoln Douglas for the last 6 years.
I debated Policy for the University of Nebraska Lincoln for 3 years.

I'm a fairly traditional LD judge. I debated LD at Lincoln Southwest for four years and have been judging for three years now.

If you are going to talk fast, remember to speak clearly and emphasize important points. I can handle speed, but clarity matters a lot more the faster you talk. Debate is ultimately an activity which is meant to encourage communication skills. If you can't communicate your arguments to me within your speech, then it doesn't get written on my flow and it won't have an impact on my ballot. Hint: You can check to see if the judge is paying attention by looking up from your computer.

Have standards, link your impacts to your standards. Otherwise I'm going to have to make an arbitrary decision and it probably won't be the one you want.

I'm okay with weird arguments, so long as you show me why they are true and why they matter.

Theory, on the other hand, should be used exclusively when your opponent's case or their actions have made the debate space so unequal that you cannot debate fairly.

I also appreciate when debaters stand for their speeches and cross ex and look at the judge rather than their opponent. If you need to sit because of an injury or something else, just let me know and it isn't an issue. This is mostly about being respectful towards your opponent, which makes you look better anyway. I do understand that it can be difficult to take notes on a computer while standing, but it does make you look a bit arrogant when your opponent is standing and you are sitting and staring at your computer or at them.

Bio

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate consistently since 2007, and have limited experience judging Student Congress. I earned a Bachelors Degree in Political Science with a minor in English in 2011. Over my adult life, I have worked as a debate coach, Mentor for the Highly Gifted, filing clerk, copywriter, Communications Director/Archivist, and currently serve as a Website and Communications Technician for Lincoln Public Schools. I point all this out to say that I have spent my life in the field of spoken and written communication, using skills that I have developed in debate.

General Notes

I continue to judge debate because I truly believe that the skills and habits that students can develop in debate have an application in the real world and that they can learn and experience new ways of thinking and fairly evaluate all sides of an argument. That being said, I am typically regarded as a fairly traditional judge, and I emphasize clarity, organization, and topic knowledge in the students that I judge. My work in web design and communications has taught me that a simple, clear structure will help your audience understand you and limit misunderstandings, so doing that is always a pretty big plus for me. I tend to be on the harsher end of speaker point distributions, with 26 (out of 30) being average in my eyes.

I strive to be open to all forms of argument, but both I and your opponent need to understand them to in order to have effective debate.

I will not tolerate the use of profanity in round. If you wouldn't use it in the classroom, don't do it in front of me.

I will disclose my thoughts on the round after I submit my ballot. I request that you refrain from talking about the round until I make my decision, and that you at least make a show of pretending to take notes during the oral critique. I do not disclose speaker points.

Please figure out how to share your cases/cards quickly and efficiently over email, flash drive, paper or whatever. I've had far too many rounds recently where this has become a major timesink and nothing makes me grouchier then watching you fumble with technology for five minutes in the middle of a round.

Speed

I have been less accepting of speed the more I have spent time in the workforce and have found that speaking quickly is a habit that practically everyone around me does not appreciate. I will try to follow your arguments the best I can, but I will not yell clear, but will likely stop flowing if I feel that I cannot effectively follow your argument. I do not want the speech doc, unless I need to address an evidence or ethical concern. Your role as a debater is to communicate cleanly and clearly, and you should not rely on me reading a document to understand what you are saying.

Standards

I believe that a strong standards debate is an effective way to center cases around a focal point and build up writing and speaking skills that can be used in the future. That said, I am open to most forms of standards/framework, as long as they are explained and I am told how they interact with whatever your opponent is providing as well. If things are left vague, I will likely make a decision that neither of us will like.

Theory

To be blunt, I have very little experience with theory arguments, and like most arguments, I will strive to be open to them, but they need to be explained.

Kritiks/Performance

Once again, I have little experience with these kinds of cases, but have enjoyed them in the past when they are run well. Like any other argument, however, I expect you to clash with your opponent, and explain to me how you interact with your opponent's arguments in the round. Role of the ballot is a vital part of these cases for me, and it had better be well warranted, explained, and extended or else I am likely to drop your entire case.

Speaking:

-I give speaker points entirely on performance, not argumentation.

-Focus on clarity. I can't flow it if I can't understand it.

-Don't speed read. Faster than conversational is fine, but only if you're enunciating very clearly.

-Don't assume I understand jargon or obscure philosophical terms. Give clear definitions and don't muddle the debate with pedantry.

Argumentation:

-Debate is a contest of logic. It is a game about who can best communicate and defend a complex perspective using logic and facts. Do not change the assumptions of debate to suit your purposes. The round must be resolutional. Do not run Kritiks or metadebate theory (unless your opponent is being abusive).

-I will weigh contentions depending on which provided framework is most prominent for the round. You do not lose the round because you drop your framework; it's perfectly acceptable to conceptually combine frameworks or have them subsumed. I love it when debaters agree on what the standards should be.

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

LD

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

Debated policy at Millard North High School, currently in my second year out.

I like to weigh debates on a more big-picture level. Honestly i am not the best at handling rapid-fire tech speeches. I'm competent enough with it, though. I won't important things if they are handled accordingly. I'm just not an ideal judge for the style.

I don't really feel one way or the other about perf con good or bad, disclosure theory, or most types of framework.

I am not a fan of framework that doesn't provide any suggestion of an alternative model of debate rounds that reaches out to the aff in some way (i.e. T version of the aff to at least show that you're trying to do something productive).

I know more about identity-politic Ks than i do about high-theory Ks.

I can keep up with speed and 0.5 extra speaker points if it's relatively clear too.

Don't worry about making eye contact with me during your speeches/crossex. It makes me feel kinda awkward.

Email: matthewmatuszeski@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name

Jacob Moore

Where I'm from

Papillion, Nebraska

What I judge

LD

Paradigm

Your standards debate is the first thing I view as it is my lens within the round. I am a traditional judge. Be able to clearly explain your standards and don't make me connect the dots on what you are trying to say.

I don't care how fast you read, but realize if you spread so fast it hurts your pace, I will take off from your speaking points

25-26 Poor

26-27 Below Average

27-28 Average

29-30 Above Average

---

-Impacts are a must in Varsity. Probability and magnitude are major weights for this.

-I allow Flex Prep, but I don't expect the opponent to answer the questions.

-Any argument you run, I roll with it. As long as you can defend your argument.

-As always, Signpost/Roadmap! Too many debaters forget this!

-Don't expect me to be an expert, even on the topic! Your job is to easily explain your philosophy to anyone, especially a judge. I cannot become an expert in Kantian Ethics from one speech after all!

-Don't be afraid to ask questions before or after the round!

Pronouns: any

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Southwest and Parliamentary at American University, and have experience judging LD, PF, and Parli. Professionally, I’ve worked most recently as a chemist and environmental health scientist.

GENERAL NOTES

I debated and now coach/judge debate because I truly enjoy the activity and think it provides excellent educational opportunities for students with a variety of interests and backgrounds. This isn’t my space but yours; please run whatever arguments that interest you and make you comfortable. The following notes are based on my aptitudes as a judge, but I don’t ‘dislike’ any forms of argumentation that are well warranted, clearly explained, and presented effectively.

Note on Trigger Warnings

A trigger warning is a verbal warning prior to the presentation of material that could be psychologically damaging (or triggering) to individuals who have experienced trauma. This warning allows individuals who may potentially be triggered to prepare themselves so they can actively participate in the debate. I believe that debate should be a safe and understanding place for all participants and believe that trigger warnings must be included by any debater who chooses to include graphic material of any kind, including but not limited to detailed descriptions of: violence based on gender, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Refusing to provide TWs for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points (see scale below).

SPEED
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s not mutually exclusive with clarity. I will not yell “clear” but an observant debater will find that I’ve stopped flowing and am looking up at them with a face of terror and/or confusion if I’m unable to understand their spread. If these non-verbal cues are ignored, the debater is responsible for any arguments I was unable to flow, which will not be weighed in subsequent speeches.

STANDARDS
I was never a big standards debater, so if your standards can be easily collapsed to a central weighing mechanism, please do so. If not, standards debate must be centered on the unique qualities of the standards themselves rather than a debater’s ability to meet the established standard (‘I achieve best’). Those are case arguments. Apply them to the case. I will choose the standard that is best warranted and explained as an appropriate mechanism to evaluate the impacts of the round.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
If you are running theory as a time suck, and it is obvious to everybody in the room (it probably is), I’m going to be annoyed at you and I probably won’t vote on it. However, I will vote theory/topicality if argued well for legitimate reasons. These are arguments I’m much less familiar with, so if you choose to make them it would be wise to take your time explaining the violations and implications clearly.

KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE
If you’re interested in a critical argument, 100% go for it. Make sure all the components are clearly present and explained. A clear role of the ballot is definitely important. Kritiks and performance debates are great because they usually allow for a greater diversity of arguments, but I also expect some level of authenticity with your advocacy. Do not spread a narrative. Do not drop a narrative in the 1AR. If you are using another person’s lived experience in a competitive atmosphere it is expected that you are respectful of that experience.

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

30

Perfect

Debater displays clear understanding of the topic and in-round arguments, case is presented not merely effectively but exceptionally. Way to go, super star!

29

Excellent

Debater effectively presents a well-developed case, fully utilizing time in speeches and cross examination. Speeches are well-organized and any issues in clarity are minor.

28

Good

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally well-developed. Debater fully utilizes their time and speeches are well-organized, though there may be some issues with clarity.

27

Average

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally developed sufficiently. Debater doesn’t fully utilize their allocated time. Speeches are generally signposted and easy to follow, though there may be some issues with clarity and organization.

26

Below Average

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions or poorly developed arguments, disorganization is distracting, and speech style/speed is difficult to understand. Cross examination is used for clarification questions only.

25

Poor

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions and poorly developed arguments, and is frequently difficult to understand due to speaking style/speed. Speeches are severely under time.

24 and below

Offensive

Debater is blatantly rude/disrespectful in or after round, uses graphic depictions of violence without utilizing TWs. Being a poor orator is not alone enough to receive a score below a 25.

NOTE: Points will be deducted, regardless of in-round performance, for debaters who argue with a decision post-round or pack up their belongings before the round and oral critique are concluded. This is disrespectful to your judge, your opponent, and the team you represent.

Feel free to ask any specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round!

Public Forum

In Public Forum I expect well-explained links into arguments and detailed analysis. It isn't enough to slap down a card and tell me that the evidence is newer/weighted more--explain why your evidence is better or better applied. Quality of contentions is better than quantity; I'd rather have you do a few things well than have many points with shallow reasoning and analysis. Speed is not a problem as long as you are very clear, but if it even gets close to spreading or if you have poor enunciation you will be in trouble. Maintain round decorum at all times; this includes giving trigger warnings where appropriate and providing alternative arguments if someone asks you not to use a triggering argument. Also, some judges like snappy or passive-aggressive CX, but I am not one of those judges. You don't get points for being a jerk. Be genuinely kind while remaining firm and you will get better speaker points from me.

Public Forum in not Lincoln-Douglas. Framework is possible, but do not make it the centerpiece of your case. I judge on evidence and impacts, not abstract theories and possibilities. Also, observations that are on the cusp of abuse do not sit well with me; Debate must be debatable.

While identity politics are important and can inform a round, do not rely on them exclusively. Belonging to a particular group does not absolve the burden of your side in the round, nor does it give you an automatic advantage. Rely on your case and evidence; if an argument is offensive it is fine to point that out, but you must explain to me why that matters in the larger scheme of the round. 

Lincoln-Douglas

In Lincoln-Douglas I look for contentions that link well with the framework and a detailed analysis and explanation of the framework. I am more familiar with traditional value and criterion-based frameworks, but as long as you do a good job of explaining your case to me I can usually keep up. I do enjoy high theory or off-the-wall cases and kritiks, but only if you explain the reasoning clearly to me. If I can't understand the framework due to a lack of explanation, I will have to default to my own reasoning in the world of the round in order to judge. Also, while I believe Debate is an intellectual game, I can also believe that my ballot can have a role if you lay out a good reason for that clearly for me. 

Please be very respectful of your opponent in round. Some people love to get snippy in CX or throw out little jabs, but I hate that. For better speaker points from me, be polite but firm. You don't get points for being a jerk.

Spreading is risky, as you must be very clear to make sure I can follow you; for reference, what would be considered "fast" for PF would be a comfortable pace for me. Anything faster I will still probably be able to catch most of it, but if you want to do well without risk, you will speak at a pace I can easily understand.

I spent my high school career debating Lincoln-Douglas. After graduating in 2012, I have consistently judged LD in Nebraska. I am more familiar with traditional debate but am open to accept more progressive positions as long as there is a clear claim, warrant, and impact. I strive to be "tabula rasa" when evaluating debate. Just make sure to do your job and convince me why I should vote in your favor.

Speed: I am not a fan of speed. I can keep up most of the time. However, attempting to speed can certainly negatively impact the debater if I'm not able to efficiently flow. I will clearly express if you're going too fast by not flowing and giving you a confused look.

Arguments: I am open to almost every type of argument as long as it is warranted and clear.

Theory: I will vote if very clear abuse is present. However, unless its absolutely necessary I will be upset with you if you turn the debate into a theory round because you lack substantial responses to your opponents case. I am a big fan of discussing the actual resolution.

Overall, I am a fairly traditional judge. Yet I have experience debating and judging more progressive debate. Demeanor and decorum are important to me. Presentation is important. However, I will ultimately vote for the winner of the best arguments.

Last Updated Feb. 2022

Bio & Experience: I did 4 years of high school policy for Kearney High School in Nebraska and 4 years of college debate split between UMKC and UNL. I previously ran the debate website Debate Central. I have coached high school debate and judged many rounds locally and nationally over the past 15ish years. Most recently I was the assistant coach at Lincoln East. My current full-time job is outside debate, doing research and data analysis. I have coached and taught every event in a classroom setting, but my background is in policy. As a policy debater, I ran arguments of every style; I went for the K slightly more often than policy arguments. I ran plenty of nontopical affs, but also went for T on the neg with some frequency. I don’t see myself as belonging to any particular stylistic “camp.”

As a person, I am a 30-domething white woman who does not fall neatly into any political party. I care about social justice and fair opportunities for all. I think it extremely important to challenge one's assumptions, both in debate and in life. I have degrees in poli sci/public policy and read quite a bit of philosophy/theory as a hobby, and I don't love it when debaters make arguments about those topics that are wildly incorrect. I include this information because social location is never wholly divorceable from the intellectual process of judging a debate. However, I make every attempt to render every decision based only on the content of the given debate.

I see debate ideally as an open testing ground for ideas and its accompanying community committed to growth and discovery. I want us to approach each other with kindness and good faith.

THE ONLY PART OF THIS YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO READ

Above anything else, I believe debate is a place for the debaters to come together and discuss their ideas. I strive to keep my personal evaluation of those ideas out of my decision calculus. I also believe that debate shapes us all in important ways, socially and intellectually, and debaters should take that into account. Those questions are as relevant to policy/trad teams as they are to K teams, and are particularly crucial to “clash of the civilizations” debates. I am open to hearing any kind of argumentation and enjoy it all pretty much equally.

I appreciate debates that involve some creativity and original ideas the most. This might take any form (unusual disad, personal scholarship, tricky procedural arguments, original narratives, unexpected PIC, etc). I see these as much more valuable than yet another round of going through the motions of saying the exact same thing. I won’t vote against you for just going for ASPEC/generic spending disad/the same K you’ve been reading for 3 years/whatever, but I do think we could all likely do something better with that time. I want to see debaters engaged with the ideas and information they are presenting.

No matter what your argumentation style is, I expect clearly articulated claims & warrants, detailed impact comparison, and rebuttals that tell me what a ballot in your favor should look like. What does it mean for me to cast my ballot for you, and why should I? If you are always directly answering those questions with your rebuttals, you should be fine.

I am always open to hearing argumentation about anything*, including debate norms. I will attempt to judge from any paradigm the round I watch asks me to adopt, even where it conflicts with what I’ve written here.

Here are some assumptions I default to unless you tell me otherwise:

• The ballot goes to the team who most successfully convinced me they deserve it in this round (why you “deserve it” can take on a lot of forms, and is up to you to develop)
• I will be flowing in a “typical” policy debate format, and assigning individual arguments to flows based on the sign-posting and organization the debaters create for me. Absent any organizational work from debaters, I might flow in one long column of “mess.”
• Offense trumps defense (unless the defense is 100%- this is rare, but possible).
• Silence is consent. New answers to drops shouldn’t be evaluated, but creative cross-applications are fair game.
• Argumentation is more important than evidence. I will only consider flaws in evidence if they are pointed out in the debate, or if there is no clash on the question other than tag-line extensions.
• No new arguments in the rebuttals. Impact comparison should begin before your last speech.
• Theory can be a voting issue, but I am unlikely to vote on it without robust argumentation about why the issue deserves the ballot. “Reject the argument, not the team” is persuasive absent an excellent counter.
• Impacts that actually happen are of greater concern than imaginary impacts. Ideas created in the debate space exist in real life, they affect us as humans, and we are responsible for them. Roleplaying as a policymaker does not make one immune from this. (This might be translated as: no matter what your approach to debate is, you better win your top-level framing stuff)

*Exceptions: I will not add speeches to the round or assign double wins or automatic block 30s, because I don’t want to mess with the tab room. These are the only considerations I’m committed to. Anything else is fair game.

OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT SPECIFIC DEBATE STUFF (in case you're super curious about my debate thoughts for some reason).

Please note these are written in a policy debate context, but the ideas expressed apply to my thoughts in other formats too:

Speed: Talk as fast as you want. I’ll listen to Ks of speed, but they better be more than “reject speed because I don’t like it.” If I say “clear,” you need to speak more clearly (this is not the same as slower). Lower threshold for anti-speed args if the debater making them has a disability or other accessibility concern and clearly expresses it before the round starts.

Evidence: Covered above. I will only call for cards if (1) I’m verifying a claim about the evidence made in a speech (2) I’m looking for a way to make a decision on an important issue that was inadequately covered by both sides. The first will please me, the second will not. Making comparisons between your evidence and your opponents’ evidence is extremely important and highly encouraged. Tell me why I should prefer yours. “Our evidence is from a peer-reviewed study while theirs is from some guy with a blog”= good. “this evidence is on fire, read it after the round!”= pointless.

Framework: No matter what your style is, you need to win your framework debate. By this I mean, you need to win why I should evaluate the debate from a perspective that allows you to win on the substance. Again, what does it mean for me to cast my ballot for you?

Framework is the place where we discuss what it takes to win the debate. This involves lots of complex questions that are not just “am I allowed to run Ks?” or “does the aff have to be topical?” (although of course those particular questions are involved). Your framework should define the roles for both sides, and cover how we determine which side wins. For 2 different examples: “the aff must defend the implementation of a topical policy action, the neg must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. The winner is the team whose advocacy is found to be comparatively advantageous” or “the winner should be decided by determining which performance or advocacy best advances diversity in debate.”

Framework decides how I will evaluate the rest of the issues in the round. It shapes how all of the clash on the substance is weighed. A good framework debate walks me through what arguments on other flows I should evaluate and why. It is a frame for the round. It does not begin from “my opponent should not be allowed to make X argument,” but rather is an attempt to explain how a judge might consider the various impacts potentially manifested by diverse ideas. (for example, a policy framework might instruct me to view a political counterplan as a legitimate counter-advocacy to the ideas presented by a nontopical aff, and discuss how competition is affected). I am not impressed by framework debates whose only implication is “vote for us because they are cheaters.” I’m unlikely to be stoked about framework debates from either side that end by asking me to wholesale disregard everything your opponent has said.

Policy teams win by winning that the discussion of policy considerations is valuable, and that their impacts are of great importance due to timeframe, magnitude, and probability. The policy is thus worthy of a judge’s intellectual endorsement as a “good idea.” K teams win by winning that discussion of ontology/epistemology/methodology/etc is valuable, that these considerations implicate or undermine policy-level conclusions, and that the K alternative somehow mitigates some identified problem. The kritik is therefore deserving of endorsement via the ballot. Trying to win the whole debate by convincing me that one of these “planes” of concern is totally unworthy of my attention is going to be difficult for you unless your opponent does a particularly bad job.

None of this means I won’t vote on a framework arg designed to exclude (such as “aff must defend usfg fiat” against a K aff with no plan text). I will if you win, just as anything else. I’m also willing to vote for the kritik of this type of framework. Full disclosure: I think frameworks designed to exclude are pedagogically questionable and (probably more importantly to you:) easy to lose. However, I’m conversely fairly unlikely to vote on the K of framework against a framework that wasn’t designed to wholesale exclude the aff from the debate (again, such as a framework that insists on considering disads or counterplans as responsive to a particular nonpolicy methodology of the aff). This obviously depends on the individual round. If your strategy for a round depends on one of these arguments (“you cheat and that’s a voter” or “trying to exclude us is a voter”) you are strongly advised to consider this paragraph and ask me about it if it strikes you as unclear.

Please talk to me if you have any questions or concerns or need clarification on anything I have said. Framework debates can be complex stuff, and are increasingly crucial to everything else that happens in many of the rounds I've been watching over the past few years. The most important point I am trying to convey is that good framework debates should set up a clear path of calculus for a judge comparing diverse impacts. They should not, IMO, be an appeal to completely ignore all of your opponents’ arguments.

Topicality: I will vote on topicality. I need to see clean, substantial, deep comparison of standards and voters. I do not necessarily require in-round abuse, unless there are arguments about why I should. In a round between two policy teams, I really enjoy a good T debate and will default to competing interpretations. I am very, very unlikely to vote on a straight RVI. When I’m wearing my “policymaker hat” I tend to assume the aff does need to be topical and the neg is entitled to test the aff’s topicality.

When I like T, it’s because I have a real personal curiosity and love for words and linguistic precision. These debates explain topicality as something like a judicial/legalistic investigation into the exact significance of a particular word choice. When I don’t like T, it’s because the neg’s argument is basically “we wanted to run this one disad but it doesn’t link to you :(” or “here is a dumb, super-limiting definition of this word I found lol vote neg.”

In a “clash of civilizations” round, a neg would obviously have to win plenty of top-level “why should I care about whether the aff is topical?” questions AND THEN also win the T line-by-line. I humbly suggest that there might be better ways to approach this debate than just going for USFG T again, but hey-- you do you. See the framework section for probably-relevant thoughts.

I’m equally likely to vote for a well-articulated K of T as for a topicality argument. If you like going for Ks of T, keep in mind that I consider them to be vulnerable to “there is a topical version of the aff” (important questions for both sides here: is there? and how would it differ from the nontopical version?) and “reject the argument, not the team/kicking is good enough.” These arguments are not trump cards, but are issues you shouldn’t brush off in front of me.

Procedurals: I really hate them and will be irritated if you make me waste several hours of my Saturday watching you read your ASPEC blocks. I’ve yet to hear a compelling reason why existential inherency doesn’t provide enough neg ground. OSPEC is the dumbest argument ever. No one gains anything from these debates. I don’t outright refuse to vote for these things, I will if you win them, and I understand that sometimes you need filler or will take advantage of an opponent’s time allocation mistake. But making these a major part of your strategy indicates a lack of creativity and intellectual ambition that will annoy me and reflect in your speaker points. I will also give a lot of weight to basically anything your opponent says to these, so you’re banking on major drops.

On the other hand, creative procedurals that are specific to a particular aff can be fun.

Theory: I’ll vote on it, but you will need to display significant in-round abuse and do more than just repeat your blocks in every speech. Making the debate all about theory when it could be about something else probably won’t help your speaks any with me, but I’ll vote there if I have to. Again, “reject the argument, not the team” is often persuasive. I lean neg in most theory debates, most of the time.

Disads/CPs/policy arguments: Yes.

Tricky, specific PICs are among my favorite strategies for dealing with many types of affirmatives. Doing something cool here will excite me.

Kritiks/”performance”/personal advocacies/nontopical affs: Yes.

I am pretty familiar with most of this lit, but that doesn’t absolve you from debating as though I wasn’t. Your link story should be tailored to the debate and include as many illustrations as possible. Don’t just repeat lingo; apply the theory you’re discussing to this specific round.

If you are obviously really unfamiliar with the ideas you’re advancing, it won’t stop me from voting for you if you’re winning, but I will be annoyed and your speaker points will take a hit.

You also need to make sure you are spending some time developing the alternative. What does it do? In other words, in a hypothetical perfect enactment of the alt, what would that look like? What would be different? How does the alt achieve solvency? Etc. (I tend to find "asking us to explain what the alternative does is a new link!" very tiresome, but it can be good if explained correctly.)

To reiterate something I hinted at above: I’m about as permissive as they come in terms of what I think is worth discussing in debate. I will not be a fan, though, if your K argument isn’t an actual argument (e.g. tell me WHAT you are defending, HOW it differs from your opponents’ ideas, and WHY I should want to cast my ballot for it).

Ins/Outs, tag team, where you speak from, paperless ev exchanges off the clock, and any other minor details about the setup of the round: I don’t care what you do.

I expect students to keep their own time. I will also run a clock, but I shouldn’t be depended on for timekeeping purposes. I don’t give time signals (unless you don’t want me to flow).

In the event of technical difficulties, I will allow a reasonable (decided based on how tight the tournament is running, etc- no more than 5 minutes) amount of “free” time to attempt to recover lost documents/reboot computers/whatever. No one is allowed to prep during this time. If I see you prepping, I will run your prep clock. If you have a complete paperless meltdown and lose your entire flow, that is a problem for you and your partner to deal with and will not result in any extra time for prepping. Please take whatever steps you need to to avoid this outcome.

Cheating: YOUR SUCCESS SHOULDN’T COME FROM ANYTHING BESIDES YOUR BRAINPOWER. If I notice you are stealing prep, clipping cards, or doing anything else shady, I will give you one verbal warning, deduct speaker points commensurate with the severity of the offense (at least 1, possibly as much as drop you to zero), and speak to your coach about it after the round. Multiple minor offenses will result in drastic speaker point deductions. If I notice you clipping more than once (doesn’t have to be the same round or even the same tournament) I will issue you a loss and speak to the tab room about it. This may happen even if your opponents don't notice or point out the cheating. In all cases, I may also consider in-round argumentation about the nature of your punishment from both sides, when appropriate, although the offending team is unlikely to win “nothing should happen to us.”

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

An incomplete list of things I like: tricky, specific strategies from all stylistic backgrounds. Debaters who are personally engaged with their argumentation and put their own spin on existing scholarship. Meta-level discussions of epistemology, meaning production, and what it means to participate in and win debates. Concrete examples and illustrations that bring your ideas to life. Strategic concessions & using your opponents’ arguments against them. Clean, organized debating. Rebuttals that “write my RFD for me.” Following the path of least resistance to the win. Arguments that begin “even if our opponents win X, we still win the debate because of Y.” Approaching your opponents with respect, kindness, good faith, and generosity of spirit. Well-defined clash. Funny jokes, a sense of style, and a little bit of sass. Asking questions and continuing the conversation post-round. Using debate as a place to explore ideas with an open heart and mind.

An incomplete list of things I dislike: Reliance on generic backfiles from the Clinton administration. Recitation of blocks without tailoring them to the specifics of the round. Obvious unfamiliarity with your own evidence and/or basic world events (understanding of what is happening around you and what has happened in the past is equally important for the articulation of K and policy arguments). Excessively long overviews; anything labeled an “underview.” Thinking you’re funny for reading horrible arguments (you can’t even begin to fathom how many people have gone for wipeout since the last time it was funny; you are wasting everyone’s time). Arguments that encourage anyone to quit debate. “Kicking” framework and acting as if it doesn’t impact every other flow. Sloppy debating that lacks direct refutation, sign-posting, and/or overall direction. Repitition of jargon or buzzwords without meaningful discussion of their significance. Affs who go for perms or no links when they should be going for internal link turns or impact turns. Approaching your opponents with disrespect, bad will, or cavalierly impugning their motives (saying “their arguments justify fascism” is very different from saying “they are fascists.” Understand the severity of personal accusations).

Speaker Points: I’m adding this section due to ongoing chaos in the college community surrounding the issue. Speaker points are always subjective, but I’m offering a guide to what my mental rubric looks like:

30= Flawless in terms of coverage, technique, and strategy. Masterful grasp of the topics being discussed, eloquent, creative argumentation, deep and well-developed. Funny, pleasant, engaging, clear, and respectful. One of the best speeches I’ve ever heard in this division. Extremely rare.

29-29.9= Excellent mastery of technical skills, coverage, and understanding of the topics of the debate. Displayed good strategic vision. Speaker is respectful, engaging, and eloquent and making is smart, compelling arguments. Any errors are minor. Overall, a tremendously impressive speaker.

28-28.9= Coverage, strategy, and technical skills were good. Speaker displays good engagement with the topics of the debate, makes clear arguments, and creates in-depth clash. Some creativity. No major errors. Not rude or offensive. Speaker was good, but did not stand out as great in this round.

27-27.9= Major errors. Coverage, strategy, or technical skills may have caused serious problems for this speaker. Clash might be limited to tagline extensions or repetition of claims without warrants. Speech might display a major lack of familiarity with the debater’s own evidence. Debater’s demeanor may have been noticeably and unjustifiably rude or disrespectful (without being an obvious ethical violation). Do a rebuttal redo from this round with your coach.

26-26.9- Debater failed to meet minimum standards for this division (filling speech time [except where unnecessary], advancing some coherent arguments). Speaker is encouraged to keep trying!

25- Given to a speaker who shows up to a round, but fails to meaningfully participate in the debate at all (such as by forfeiting or waiving their speech). This is not a hard rule, and the circumstances for a forfeit will be considered.

0-24- Given only as punishment for some ethical violation, such as hate speech, flagrant time-stealing, or first-offense minor card clipping. This might arise due to opponent’s argumentation or my own prerogative. Extreme circumstances only.

*Please always feel free to chat with me about anything written here, or any questions you have. I like talking about debate, and I don’t live under the illusion that I’m never wrong. I welcome any and all conversations.*

Personal Info

I debated at Lincoln HS, in Lincoln, NE. I mostly debated policy, specialized in the kritikal side of things, and ran everything from topical affirmatives, to anti-topical affirmatives. On the negative, I ran everything from Nietzsche to Give the Land back to spending DA's and consult CP's. After graduating HS I joined the Army. Now I am stationed in JBLM, Washington with 1st Group.

I swear like an sailor, expect it, and let me know if it is offensive to you, I will attempt to refrain as much as possible.

General stuff:

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

· BE CLEAR. I haven't judged in about a year.

· I don't wanna watch two ships passing in the night (I'm looking at you, Novice Policy). Debates with more clash usually end with more speaker points for both sides.

Policy:

First, some basic thoughts:

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

· I’ll have a hard time voting for traditional condo bad theory against one conditional advocacy, but multiple contradictory worlds are probably not okay. This is assuming the advocacy is not for some sort of chaotic alternative.

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

More specifically:

· Kritiks must flow correctly and clearly.

· I love a good case argument, and if you fail to attack the case, and only run a kritik, counterplan, or disad, it is going to be hard for me to vote neg. I believe that, minimum, there should be at least one developed case argument brought into the 2NR. This does come with exceptions, of course. Kritiks that attack the foundations of debate, or form into a case negative with exterior offense, I will listen to, but I promise you, it is easier to just make a case argument.

· Counter-K’s are fine but please make it clear about whether or not it is a part of the affirmative case and you are treating it as a negative specific advantage, or whether it is free floating.

· You can’t bullshit a bullshtitter. Don’t even try.

Lincoln-Douglas

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

If you give me some bullshit definition from Merriam-Webster or fucking Dictionary.com it is very easy to convince me that definition is, in fact, complete bullshit. There are plenty of good sources to get legal and philosophical definitions from. I'd much rather hear a definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Black's Law Dictionary.

As a policy debater, I am used to the long rebuttals and constructive speeches to develop arguments, such as K's. This means I have a high standard for how well you develop your arguments. I would rather hear two well developed arguments than twenty arguments that are brought up and then never extended.

On voting:

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

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