My background- While in high school, I competed in varsity public forum all four years. I'm well versed in the format and how things are supposed to run. I have been judging since I graduated, which was in 2015, so I have stayed up to date on formats, styles, etc. If you have any more questions about this just ask.

Speaking- Delivery is important. If you are fumbling through your case and your arguments and seem unfamiliar with what you're saying, that doesn't look good to me. I do fine with speed, but I still need to be able to understand what you're saying. If you are going to be going through your speeches rather quickly, be sure that your tags are made clear so I'm flowing things where you're intending for them to be flowed.

Argumentation- I am a flow judge so I prefer you break your arguments into points that can be tagged and followed with ease. This applies to all of your speeches. If you leave things untouched on the flow, I consider that dropping the point. When it comes to crossfires, be civil. Don't belittle each other, and respect what your opponent has to say regardless of how much you disagree. You can be passionate, but don't be rude. The summary and final focus SHOULD NOT cover the entire flow. By this time you need to have the round broken down into a few main arguments for me to vote on, and they should be consistent throughout both speeches. You need to tell me why these are the most important arguments of the round and why you've won on them (weighing arguments/evidence). Telling me you attacked your opponent's point is not enough, tell me why your attack is valid and defeats their point. Frameworks are fine, but if both teams are running one and they contradict each other you need to tell me WHY to prefer yours.

Evidence- Your claims need to be evidence backed. With that, you need to represent your evidence as it was intended, which requires you to have an understanding of it before using it in the round. Misrepresentation is absolutely not okay, and if your opponents call you on that I expect you to clarify/defend what you said about it previously, and I have no issue with looking at the evidence myself. With this, there should be a clear link between your evidence and the argument at hand. You shouldn't be trying to make connections that aren't there just so that you have something to say against a point.

Timing- I will keep time for all speeches, crossfires, and prep time. You are more than welcome to keep your own time as well and are encouraged to do so. I prefer that you don't time your opponents because if your timer goes off before mine/theirs it is disruptive and in my opinion rude. If you feel you must time them as well, please do it silently. If you are asking for evidence, I will run prep time while you're looking through it. While you are using prep time, I am paying attention. I will stop prep when I see that you have stopped working, not when you tell me to stop.

I am 100% open to answering any questions you have at the beginning regarding my paradigm, and at the end regarding the round (time allowing). I will disclose if that's what the tournament has asked for me to do, but otherwise, I typically keep my vote to myself. All of my feedback is meant to be constructive and to help you improve, not to tear you down!

Make sure you are speaking clearly and enunciating. Moderate speed is fine as long as your speech is clear. Be respectful of everyone in the round.

Specify the voter issues; main arguments in today's debate, why you won, why they lost, and why your impact outweighs theirs. I use your voters and the flow to choose a winner.

I have a policy background but have been judging PF since the move away from policy in SD.

Extend warrants, offense, framing.

I will listen to anything, Ks included.

Please time your own speeches and prep, your opponents' speeches and prep, and CF. I will do my best, but I am counting on y'all to be doing this as well.

I would prefer to the extent that is possible that cards only be called in the instance of genuine concern over unfairness/cheating. Should you need to call a card otherwise, once your opponent has prepared it for your viewing, your prep starts.

Background

• Did college NFA LD for 4 years

Miscellaneous

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

Bias

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

Paradigm

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

NFA LD 

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

PF 

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

Debate should be an educational and communicative activity. I look for debaters that can discuss the topic with intelligence and honesty. Any attempts to play games with my emotions or my sentiments will get very low marks on the ballot. Debate the topic and do so with integrity, this is my expectation.

Brian Geffre

Shanley High School

Fargo ND

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable. If you are going to use speed as part of a strategy, I would rather you use the extra time you save to go more in-depth on fewer arguments rather than creating more, not as well-fleshed-out arguments.

Theory/Kritik

I am a teacher, and debate is for education. I am predisposed to believe that debating issues that are intentionally (not just a loose link to the resolution or a bad interpretation of a definition) outside of the resolution can harm the fairness of the debate and the opponent's education. That said, I welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot.

Framework

If two competing frameworks offer substantially different views of the round, I will evaluate it based on whichever team persuades me to use their framing. So, yes, I will vote on a framework and mentally adopt that framing to evaluate the impacts of the round. Strategically, it would be best to tell me how you win under both frameworks if you are unsure which framework is more persuasive to me. If the framing is fairly similar, I would hope the debaters would recognize that sooner rather than later and mutually agree so there is more time to focus on the core issues of the topic.

Tips

(I don't expect you to follow this strictly. You debate how you feel best. These are just the styles I am more likely to understand, appreciate, and ultimately vote for because it is how I teach my students. You utilize this information however you like.)

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting. Also, I have found debaters more successful when they can cross-apply evidence or arguments from their own contentions to attack the opponent's case. It seems to make things more organized because less evidence is being brought in, and thus, the debate becomes more focused on the quality of the argumentation.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy-looking face. Don’t think I disagree with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their case. If you can defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. I want a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech if you can. On the same note, if the other team does drop critical arguments on the case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

You should select two or three main voting issues for the final focus. The speech's last 15-20 seconds should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that suits you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me.

I will evaluate the evidence if you ask me to call for the evidence. But, if the evidence does not change my decision, I may not call for it.

Please don't try to avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. Evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate. Try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground and someone who uses rudeness to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

As a general observation, conceding a few arguments that might legitimately be untrue puts you in a better position to win than trying to defend every aspect and piece of evidence of your case. The energy it takes to defend legitimately untrue arguments is not worth the time you potentially lose to develop other, more substantial arguments. Just pick and choose wisely.

Policy-I- I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policymaker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

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 in varsity pf for 3 years at roosevelt high school in sioux falls, sd with a little bit of experience in circuit debate. in my 3rd-ish year of judging debate. currently a junior at the university of south dakota studying political science. pronouns are she/her/hers.

----------

GENERAL STUFF FOR EVERYONE:

speak up and speak clearly, but don't yell.

anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. will make you lose automatically. no questions asked. debate tournaments must be a safe and inclusive space for everyone involved, and we need to keep it that way.

i will dock speaks for rude behavior (consistent interruptions during speeches/questioning/rfds, belittling opponents or judges, bashing on an opponent for genuinely not understanding something, etc.).

i can generally handle speed but 1) i'll stop flowing if i can't understand you and 2) you need to be mindful of what your opponents may prefer.

PLEASE USE TRIGGER WARNINGS PRIOR TO THE ROUND IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANY SENSITIVE MATERIAL. i don't want anyone to feel vulnerable or threatened by any material that may have an adverse impact on them.

for debate, i'll disclose the winning team and try my best to give an RFD if time allows.

----------

***IMPORTANT - PLEASE DO NOT SKIM OR SKIP!***

i know circuit debaters enjoy using technical jargon, but i strongly dislike it when teams clearly use this sort of language to overwhelm their opponents and practically stomp all over them. this language isn't supposed to be used to take advantage of others, whether it's through confusing them or by making it seem like you know what you're talking about when it’s all just fluff.

that being said, i truly believe the round needs to be accessible to everyone in the room. you shouldn't have to use technical jargon every 5 words in a sentence to win the round. i care more about the quality of your args/ev and your ability to get me to understand and believe what you're saying rather than your ability to say "terminal defense" 20 times in a speech.

i'm not saying you can't use jargon at all, but what i am saying is that you should tone it down and focus more on delivering well-developed and coherent args at a baseline level of understanding. i may not be a true "lay" judge due to my debate experience, but i just don't have the time to learn resolutions anymore, so doing this will help me out a lot when it comes to understanding what both sides are arguing. i also want all debaters to have the chance to comprehend the round as a whole without potentially being thrown off by the constant use of such jargon - everyone should be able to learn in this setting!

if you can adapt to this, i'll be happy. if you have any questions (especially since i may not have been totally clear in this), that's cool too! but if you're the type of person who prefers to have a debate that is a complete mashup of jargon b/c that’s the only way you know how to win, i'm NOT the judge for you. if you're stuck with me anyway and get upset, i won't feel sorry nor will i waste any time arguing with you or your coach(es). this has been a fair warning to everyone. thanks!

----------

PF:

constructive: definitions are fine if absolutely necessary but keep them short. framework is really helpful to have b/c it provides a lens for evaluating the round. i prefer seeing 2-3 clear points of contention presented in a case (“contention 1 is...” or some iteration of that). CLEARLY STATE TAGLINES, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS. a case w/o warrants and impacts is highly unlikely to get my vote.

rebuttal: put some sort of roadmap on top so i know where you're going. signpost clearly. personal preference = 1st rebuttal spends all 4 min on offense against the other case while 2nd rebuttal spends ~2 min on offense and ~2 min responding to 1st rebuttal's attacks. extend and cross-apply points when you can.

summary: again, provide some sort of roadmap. base this speech off of what has been said in the round thus far - no new args please. **clear and distinct voting issues** are really nice to have and make it easier for me to weigh the round on my flow. definitions don't count as voting issues.

final focus: basically just explain to me why you win the round with 2-3 voting issues. no new args or ev can be brought up. i will only weigh warrants and impacts that have been CLEARLY and CLEANLY extended throughout the round up until this speech. if it wasn't extended beforehand (i.e. brought up in rebuttal, dropped in summary, but brought up again in final focus), i won't weigh it.

ev: if you ask your opponents for ev after their speech or after crossfire, that's fine with me. i won't use your prep time while you're getting your ev unless it's taking an absurd amount of time. please refrain from calling for ev as a way to give yourself or your partner extra time to work on a speech. if i notice this, i'll dock your speaks.

NEW - how to effectively win my ballot: give me voting issues in summary/final focus so i know what to focus on for my decision. if you don't clearly state your voting issues (i.e., "our first voting issue is..."), i'm going to have to formulate my RFD around whatever i personally found interesting in the round, and i don't think that's in the best interest of any team. not having clear voting issues is an immense risk of losing my ballot.

other: do NOT try to run anything under the guise of theory, counterplans, kritiks, or anything similar. you will automatically lose if you do. i also stress quality over quantity. just because you read more ev doesn't mean that you win. i'd prefer to hear 1 good card from a reputable scholarly source rather than 10 mediocre cards from at-home blogs.

----------

EXTRA INFO:

if possible, i'll give an extra half speaker point (+0.5) to any debater who uses an effective (not half-assed) analogy in round that not only helps explain an arg better but is able to get a smile or laugh out of me. analogies can be a great way to understand a new or complicated concept, or they can be useful in simply portraying something in a different lens. i also think they help make the round more engaging, and i always appreciate debaters who strive to do that. we all get tired of going to rounds after a long day, especially towards the end of 2-3 day long tournaments. this is just a nice and simple way to help liven things up and bring energy back into the round!

i also know that i didn’t really touch on any other events in this b/c i wanted to keep this short and concise - if i’m your judge and we’re not in a pf round, i will happily answer your questions as best as i can, but please bear with me!

----------

if you have any questions that i didn't answer in this, please feel free to ask me!

Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:

1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.

2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.

Only after these are met will I move on to:

3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.

I am a pretty straight forward policy maker, weigh your impacts and I will vote on the cost-benefit analysis. As for speed, I may handle moderately quick speaking, but all out speed will leave gaps in my flow, and I will have a difficult time voting for those arguments. Tell me a well-warranted story about why I should vote for you.

If you prove to me that you're winning on the flow, then I'll vote for you. Framework is important if it's carried throughout the round and given sufficient justification. I like when teams have clash on big points of contention in the round. Don't read so fast that it becomes a detriment to your ability to articulate your words. Respect each other, please.

-I am a judge who flows contentions and major arguments. I am looking for actual debate, not just a summary of the contentions. I want direct attacks against contentions and subpoints.

-I look for strong speaking skills. I want debaters who are not afraid to take charge during debates, and I want debaters who at least act like they know what they are talking about. If I can't hear the argument or understand what is being said, I cannot flow, therefore arguments are dropped.

-I want weighing. If both teams have strong arguments, I want debaters to tell me why their impacts, their side, outweighs their opponents'. Both teams can tell me that their side should win, but the team that proves to me their side wins, will take the win.

-I am looking for professionalism. You can be firm in your arguments without being rude. I do not tolerate laughing nor name calling during rounds. Debate is professional and debaters must act as such. I expect debaters to respect their judge, their partner, their opponents, and their classroom. As soon as a debater crosses the line with their aggression or with inappropriate language, they will be dropped. There will be topics that are argued about that may be sensitive towards others, and debaters must remain mindful of that. This is not a place or time for your opinions to be hear, this is a time for fact.

-I am looking for evidence. If debaters argue with their own analysis or my least favorite phrase in debate "common sense," I cannot rely on the validity of their word. I need evidence, and research. Anyone can say that common sense is reliable, however the team that provides me with evidence that specifically helps their argument, is most likely to win.

I competed all 4 years of High School on the local, state, and national tournament levels, so I am comfortable with different styles of argumentation/speed. I may look uninterested/mad in round, but usually just thinking through your statements and listening to responses from the opponents.

Won't flow CX (it is mostly meant for you as a debater, holds little impact on my ballot).

Will time speeches and track prep time (I expect you to do this as well)

If you ask for evidence in round, prep time will start when you receive it and will continue as long as you have it

If you miscut evidence, I will ask for it and possibly drop you. That doesn't mean if I ask for it that I am suspicious, sometimes I hear good evidence and want to see it.

Things to receive my ballot:

Sign-posting, Clear Link-Chains, analysis of Arguments, Cover the flow

Things to not receive my ballot:

Dropping things, misrepresenting evidence (yours or opponents)

bickering in cross, Trigger words, disconnected links, speaking softly

Misc:

PLEASE sign post in rebuttal PFers. If you don't tell me where to put something, it may hurt the impact of your argument.

Make the debate interesting and engaging; speak don't just read, compare/challange arguments

**Feel free to talk to me after round and ask questions about argumentation or better responses.

CURRENT OCCUPATION: Attorney

POLICY DEBATE: Policymaker.

LD DEBATE: I will decide who wins the value/criterion debate, and then assess the resolution/contentions through that lens.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

TLDR: Experienced former public forum debater and coach. If you want specifics, read further.

This is the debate event with which I have the most experience. While in high school, I was a South Dakota state champion, runner-up, and quarter finalist during my four years. I qualified to the national tournament in public forum debate my junior and senior year and participated in out-rounds both years. I have extensive judging experience and have been a coach for public forum debate.

If you're going to have a framework: (1) it must be fair; (2) it should advance your case/contentions; and (3) it should be brought up in every speech.

If one or both teams provide a framework that meets my above three requirements, I will decide which one is better and use it to frame the resolution/contention debate.

Number of responses don't impress me as much as the quality of your responses. A team can give 15 responses, but if one good response wipes out the logical basis of those responses, I will give more weight to the one response.

I prefer a very organized final focus that summarizes the clash in the debate and firmly resolves why your responses were stronger. I do not enjoy just a summary of the debate and what each team said. Tell me why you were better. In essence: your speech should be what I write on the ballot. "Write the ballot for me."

I look for solid arguments, but weigh heavily on common sense and speaking skills as well. If you leave a good contention unblocked, it will count against you. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently. I try to vote on the flow, but if it's a mess or I can't understand you, I can't do that.

Be polite. If it is a close round, you will make my decision easy by being disrespectful to your opponents. If the disrespectful behavior is egregious, I may vote you down regardless of your arguments. This activity is about civil discourse, not insults.

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

My previous paradigm preferences are four years old at this point and likely outdated. I have deleted them for now.

I am likely much, much worse at flowing these days than I was when judging all the time. I have been a tournament tab resident for years on end now, and that likely means I'm not as up to date on new progressive developments in rounds.

Here's what I'll say:

- Don't treat me like I'm a dummy, but don't presume I understand everything you're saying. I need you to do the work of explaining arguments, articulating impacts, and explicitly weighing within the round.

- I expect that a PF team going 2nd will have a rebuttal that both answers the opponent's case and rebuilds their own. Any argument not addressed in the 2nd team's rebuttal is a conceded argument, and if the first team makes it a voter, that's likely ballgame (assuming there is offense on the argument for the 1st team).

- I'm watching everything, but if you don't make it matter, it doesn't matter.

- In PF, I'm not going to break my back to follow you at a thousand miles an hour, so if you're fast, I'll give you one verbal "CLEAR" in the round to let you know you're leaving me behind. I will not feel at all responsible for what you might think is a bad decision if the way you're speaking disregards my ability/inability to follow and flow you.

- I expect clear and explicit voters in the final speeches.

- I'm not at all impressed by debaters who are jerks to opponents. This is a community, and everyone in it should be a steward of that community. Decorum, in extreme cases, is a voting issue for me, and I do consider my ballot my greatest means of discouraging outlandish and abusive behavior.

- I want full text reading of evidence, not paraphrasing. Upon the request of the opponent, cards not provided in a reasonable timeframe will be disregarded as if they don't exist.

If you have any specific questions, ask them pre-round.

Background: I did debate in PF for four years at Lincoln High School.

Debate how ever you want. I will try to be tabula rasa and evaluate what is in round. To help me make a good decision, I have compiled a list of things you should do in a debate round.

Things I like in a debate round:

1) Weigh arguments.

2) Extend cards, warrants, impact, or whatever you think will make you win the round. That being said, this is how I consider a good extension. Don't assume that I "get" your argument if you bring up a card name related to it. That is not how it works. I expect fully extension of your warrants.

3) Good strategy > extend everything

4) Second speaking team should plan on responding to the first rebuttal in second rebuttal.

5) If something is in final focus, then it must(most of the time) be in the summary.

I have linked great videos that explains the components of debate. Check these out in your free time.

Progressive Arguments:

I am inexperience with this but I am learning. Don't count on me for making the right decision.

Learn how to do a summary in debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuLuRZuvsJc

Learn how to do Impact Calculus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlR27R_bG0o&feature=youtu.be

The Human Condition and Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7sxj1Z-U1E&feature=youtu.be

Affiliations

Debated for Watertown HS (SD) 2014-2018

TL:DR

If you want ill give time to read before round, just ask. Here is a quick rundown:

I debated PF all four years of high school with some success. I prefer warranted debates, extensions, and clash. Speed is okay, but I will say clear if I can't keep up.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

Former 4-year varsity debater and extemper at Watertown HS. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in PF in 2017 and I was a state quarterfinalist in 2017 and 2018 in PF. I also qualified for NSDA nationals in 2018 for IX and placed 3rd at state in 2018. I have also helped coach a couple of teams to a couple of state finals in PF and one state champion in DX. I now work in public policy full-time

Contact for any further clarification: vlasmanaaron@gmail.com

_______________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

Tech>Truth

Warrants>Empirics

Warrants are essential. Please explain the logic behind every card - reading the tag and highlight isn't enough.

Theory:

I would prefer you to stay away from theory in PF. I have sat in on a few theory debates but never debated or judged it myself. I'm pretty open to some T but I think in PF that argument can come somewhere naturally in the rebuttal and not in a theory shell. Please make it well warranted, don't just read T for offense.

Interp:

I'm okay with weird or more obscure interpretations just make them warranted. If a team is running an abusive interp then, by all means, call them out. Again, make a warranted argument as to why the interp is abusive or I will allow the interp. Please, do not confuse/blur interps with framework - they are very different.

Framework:

I will default CBA

Framework should clearly define what I am weighing in the round. If you are going to run a FW then it is crucial you extend it in every speech or I will drop it. Please, make your FW pertain to the narrative of your case or the overall weighing of the round. If there is competing FW I'll judge which to use based on debate. I don't want to use two frameworks but I will if need be. If your FW does not relate to the resolution, your narrative, or any aspect of the round then this is one place where I will not flow it. No throwaway FW. As always, warrants matter. I won't frame the round how you tell me to without warrants.

Case Debate:

I am fine with just about any type of case - as long as it is warranted. I once ran that lifting the Cuban embargo would lead Cuba to drill for oil off US shores which stops Venezuelan corruption on the AFF - so go nuts. Interesting and different arguments are encouraged as long as they are well warranted and defended.

Crossfire:

I'm seeing this less and less but please don't take time during cross to find a card - your time is much better spent questioning. I don't have any problems with folks being aggressive in cross but be mindful of all competitors and their experience in the round. Do not yell, I promise your argument does not get better based on volume. Do not speak over debaters. Do not be condescending or make ad hominem arguments in cross. Crossfire is binding.

In Round:

I enjoy and prefer clash. Debates without clash arent educational and become very boring very fast. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to turns or it is conceded. Extend every argument you are going for. If something is not extended it is dropped from the flow. Weighing is incredibly important - if you don't weigh then I will have to intervene and weigh myself. I prefer every speech other than the FF to be line by line.

Prep Time:

DO NOT STEAL PREP. I am okay with everyone keeping their own prep but I will also keep prep to cross-check. You are encouraged to call for cards before and after speeches. If you are the team calling for a card or the partner not looking for a card, just set your pen down and look up from your computer so there is no confusion about stealing prep. I will start prep once a team gets the card. I will stop prep once you are done with the card and continue/restart prep when need be.

Speaks:

I'm not that stingy with speaks unless you give me a reason to give out low speaks. Low speaks will be given out if you are abusive in round, commit an evidence violation, overly mean, etc. As long as you debate well do not worry ab speaks.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have any other questions about my paradigm on something not listed above please ask!

I will disclose after the round if you would like. If time permits, I will give a full RFD. If timing does not permit feel free to find me in the halls.

Best of luck!

Run something crazy.

Debated varsity PF in South Dakota. Have been judging for the last six years.

Evidence indict are accepted.

Specific questions about judging style are welcomed before the round begins.

If you are going to go for an evidence violation make sure it's a valid one. If I feel the violation is frivolous I will vote you down.

Best bet is to ask me any questions before the round.

LD

I am in my third season of judging LD, so I am still learning. I will admit that I am leaning on my Public Forum experience to a degree during the learning process. I have so far developed two rules about judging LD:

1.) Defend your value statement, especially if your opponent attacks it. If your opponent is able to negate your value statement, your case goes away and it becomes extremely difficult to win at that point.

2.) If you and your opponent agree upon or merge your value statements and your criterion, then to me it becomes a PF round.

PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC.

Introduction

The best thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it, and the worst thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it. If you don't read this before a round, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS OF ONLINE DEBATE, don't complain to your coach about what is said on my ballot after you lose.

How I vote/Framework

You can present your framework if you want, but I really don't pay any attention to it, especially with resolutions that are Yes/No. I am more interested in hearing the contents of your case, and I don't start flowing until I hear you say "Contention 1". I vote based on the cases, their contents, the attacks made on the cases and the responses to those attacks. Whoever has the majority of their case left standing at the end of the round wins. I value evidence over opinion, but not exclusively so. If you are presenting a morality-based case, you do so at your peril. It is my opinion that morality arguments are best done in LD. If you present a morality-based case AND you tell me I'm immoral if I vote you down, you are officially done at that point (it's happened, that's why it's included).

Argumentation
First and foremost, I expect professional conduct during the entirety of the round. While I haven’t yet decided a round based on arrogance, rudeness or condescension, I also have no qualms awarding a low-point win if the tournament rules allow.

Case speakers – I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of what has to be proven by whom during a debate round, especially toward the end of a topic period. Therefore, I don’t want to hear the Webster definition of 3 or 4 of the words in the resolution unless your definition differs from your opponent's. You may present framework if you want, but refer to the above as to how I treat it. As stated above in "How I vote", I very rarely start flowing until I hear "Our first contention is...…"

Rebuttal speakers – I value your responses to your opponent’s case more than I do getting back to your own, especially if all you’re doing is re-reading it. In addition, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE OR ARE SUPPLEMENTING YOUR OWN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING. If you don't, it doesn't get flowed, and what doesn't get flowed doesn't get judged. I also like rebuttal speakers who are skilled enough to be able to attack their opponent’s rebuttal if you are speaking second. Finally, be very careful if you're attacking your opponent's case with points from your own. If your attack point gets damaged or negated, the opponents points you attacked will more than likely pull through intact.

Crossfire – It is very difficult to win a round during crossfire, but it is very easy to lose a round during crossfire. I’ll let you interpret that however you want. I consider CX to be for my benefit, not yours. I'm not real crazy about interruptions or talking over one another. Let your opponent finish an answer before you ask a follow-up question. I do reserve the right (and I have done it) to cut off a CX round if all you're doing is continuing the debate rather than doing Q&A. My rule at the buzzer - an answer may finish, a question may not.

Summary - The third minute of summary that was added last year has been interesting in how teams have approached it. I will say this: If you are speaking first, you can go back and attack your opponent's rebuttal, but don't spend more than 90-seconds on it. If you spend the entire time in attack, I'm going to assume you think you're losing. You should be introducing voters and giving me your introductory analysis of how the round is going.

Final Focus – You should be telling me why you won the round. I do not object if you figuratively take me by the hand and walk me through your analysis of how the round went. If you spend more than half your time continuing to attack your opponent's case, I will again assume that you're not confident about the success of your own.

Delivery
As far as speed goes, this is not policy. While I do flow with a spreadsheet on a laptop, there are even speeds that I can’t follow. If you see me put my hands behind my head, you are talking too fast, and what does not get flowed does not get judged. Please slow down a notch when presenting main points and sub points.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC - If you are going to run Climate Change on the Pro, or Remittances on the Con, you had better be able to connect it back to the resolution. If you don't, and your opponent argues that either of these points are non-resolutional, I will agree with them.

Questions? Feel free to send an email to either wilsonbl@sio.midco.net or blaine@ucctcm.org