Tabroom.com

NSCTA State Debate Championships

2018 — Lincoln, NE/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jacob Bartman Omaha Westside High School None

AMY BOLTON Lincoln Southeast HS

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 1:53 AM CDT

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.

Rodney Edwards Lincoln North Star

Delta Fajardo Hastings Senior High School

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 3:38 PM CDT

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

- Speech Drop / Case Sharing -

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

- Progressive cases -

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

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

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

Policy style used in other debate types -

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

Theory -

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

- Speed -

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

- Ideal vs. Pragmatic -

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

- Congress -

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

- Lincoln Douglas -

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

- Public Forum -

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

Victoria Freeman Lincoln HS

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 2:03 PM CDT

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.

Jeff Garst Ralston HS

Megan Kim Millard North HS

Allison Lambert Norfolk HS

Aaron Lechtenberger Millard West High School

Jacob Moore Lincoln Southeast HS

Lucas Nelsen Norfolk HS None

Nancy Nguyen Hastings Senior High School

Fred Robertson Elkhorn South

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 8:48 AM CDT

Fred Robertson, retired teacher and speech and debate coach---lives in Omaha, Nebraska

I coached at Fremont High School and Millard West High School for the bulk of my career, retiring in 2013. I guess I am semi-retired since I do assist in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Omaha Marian High School for coach Halli Tripe, and I still judge on the Nebraska circuit fairly regularly. I also direct and teach at my non-profit, Guided by Kids, along with Payton Shudak, a former state champion Lincoln-Douglas debater at Millard West. At Guided by Kids, we offer free speech and debate instruction, as well as encourage community involvement, for 5th-8th graders in the Omaha metro area. I also ran my debate camp, the Nebraska Debate Institute, every summer from 2004 to 2020.

During my career, I served on the NFL/NSDA Lincoln-Douglas wording committee for over 10 years, and I was happy to be admitted to the NFL/NSDA Coaches’ Hall of Fame in 2015. Being in the same group as J.W. Patterson, the late Billy Tate, Lydia Esslinger, and Kandi King—to name just a few of the people in that Hall who have been or continue to be incredible individuals and educators-- is a great honor.

I judge Lincoln-Douglas debate more than anything else, but I will include Public Forum, Policy, and Congress as I have been used in those events as well.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

One thing that distinguishes me from other judges is that I expect quality speaking. That means you ought to be looking at me and speaking with inflection which shows understanding of what you are saying, even if you are reading evidence. I am tired of watching students read to me, even though they are delivering their cases to me for the tenth time. That’s simply bad speaking.

I am not a fan of speed when you can’t be at all clear. I’ll just say slow down and if you don’t, it’s your own fault if I don’t flow arguments or understand what you are saying. In debate, less can be more if you learn to choose arguments and evidence wisely. Too many LD debaters are adopting the “kitchen sink” style of debate—throw as much nonsense as possible and then claim drops as critical to how I should judge the round. Usually, that isn't a successful strategy when I am judging.

Lots of theory arguments made in LD are lamentable at best and would be railed against by policy judges who know what a good theory argument should be. I think that sums up my attitude towards 90% of the theory arguments I hear in LD rounds. That doesn’t mean theory arguments should never be run. What it means is that I usually see these arguments run in rounds in which an opponent is doing nothing theoretically objectionable, but nevertheless I’m stuck watching someone who has been coached “to run theory” always because it’s "cool" or who has made this bad choice independently. In these rounds, I am bored by meaningless drivel, and I’m not happy.

I enjoy debate on the resolution, but that does not mean critical approaches (critiques, or the K, or whatever you want to call it) cannot be appropriate if done well. I enjoy seeing someone take a critical approach because they genuinely believe that approach is warranted because of a resolution, or because of an opponent’s language in reading case or evidence (but there are limits—sometimes these claims of a link to warrant a critique are dubious at best). or because the debater argues the issue is so important it ought to be valid to be argued in any debate. I’ve voted for many critical cases and approaches in LD and policy over the years. If I see that approach taken skillfully and genuinely, I often find these arguments refreshing and creative. If I see that approach taken for tactical reasons only, in a phony, half-baked way, however, I often find myself repulsed by critical arguments posited by students who appear not to care about what they are arguing. I am sure many ask "How do you determine who is being genuine and who isn’t?" 40 years of teaching and coaching have made me an expert judge concerning matters like this, but I do admit this is largely a subjective judgment.

Telling me what is offense/defense and what I must vote on regarding your claims regarding these distinctions has always bored me. Tell me in a clear way why an argument your opponent has made does not matter, or how your answer takes the argument out. Using the jargon is something you’ve learned from mainly college judges (some college judges are quite good, but my generalization is solid here) but, at 66, I’m not a college judge. I feel pretty much the same way about the often frenetically shouted claim of “turns” aplenty. Settle down and explain why your opponent’s argument actually supports your side. I may agree.

Other stuff—fine to ask me some questions before round about my preferences, but please make them specific and not open-ended to the point of goofiness. Asking me “What do you like in a round?” is likely to lead to me saying “Well, I’d like one of you to speak like Martin Luther King and the other to speak like Elie Wiesel; or perhaps bell hooks and Isabel Wilkerson---but I doubt that’s going to happen.” Please be on time to rounds and come with a pre-flow done. Don’t assume I’m “cool with flex c-x and/or prep time.” If the tournament tells me I have to be “cool” with those rules I will be, but if I haven't been told that, I'm not. Ask me if you can speak sitting down. Of course I accommodate needs to do so, but often this is just done by speakers because it’s too dang hard, I guess, for you to stand to speak or do c-x. I find that perplexing, but if you ask, in a nice way, I may say “Oh, what the heck. It’s round five and everyone’s tired.” You should bring a timer and time yourself and your opponent; keep prep time also. I’d rather flow and write substantive comments rather than worry about timing.

A final word—I still love judging Lincoln-Douglas debate, and especially seeing new debaters who add their voices to this activity. It’s also a joy to see someone stick with the activity and keep getting smarter and better. Too often, however, I see very intelligent novice debaters who deteriorate in speaking skills as they advance through varsity LD. All I can say is that with the very best Lincoln-Douglas debaters I judged over a long and still-continuing career, that did not happen. Jenn Larson, Chris Theis, Tom Pryor (blast from the past for Minnesotans who remember that incredibly witty and brilliant guy), and Tom Evnen come to mind. I am old, yes, and I’m not “cool” according to many who would judge judges nowadays, but I am straightforward in telling you who I am, and I will never tell you anything other than the truth as I see it in an LD round I judge.

Public Forum:

Read my LD stuff to get the picture. I’m tired of continual claims of “cheating” in Public Forum. Slow down, read actual quotations as evidence and choose them wisely so they constitute more than blippy assertions.

I have no bias against PF at all. Loved coaching it and had many high-quality teams. A great PF round is a great debate round. Make sure to give me a sound “break it down” analytical story in the summary and final focus and you will be ahead of the game with me. Stay calm and cool for the most part, though of course assertive/aggressive at times is just part of what you should do when debating. It’s just that I have seen this out of control in far too many PF rounds, especially in Grand C-X, or Crossfire, or whatever that misplaced (why have c-x after the summaries have been presented?) abomination is called.

Policy: Love the event, though it was the last one I learned to coach fairly well. If I’m in a round, I usually ask for some consideration regarding speed, just so I can flow better. If you read my LD paradigm, you can see where I most likely stand on arguments. If I happen to judge a policy round, which is fairly rare, but does happen—just ask me good, specific questions prior to the round.

Congress: I usually judge at NSDA districts only but that of course is a very important congress event. I have coached many debaters and speech students as well who were successful in Congress, though it was never a first focus event with the bulk of students I coached. I like to see excellent questioning, sound use of evidence, and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see congresspeople extending and elaborating on arguments wisely, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. It’s wise for you not to do a lot of goofball parliamentary maneuvers. That’s just not good strategy for you if you want to impress me, and I most often end up as a parliamentarian when I do judge Congress, so overall impression becomes very important to how I rank you. I’ve seen some great congressional debate over the last 30 plus years I’ve judged it, but most of the time, I’ve seen too many repetitive, canned speeches followed by non-responsive rebuttal speeches. If you do what I prefer, however-- which is the opposite of that kind of “bad Congress”-- you can do fairly well.

Kim Samuelson Lincoln East HS None

Aarron Schurevich Millard North HS

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

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.

Payton Shudak Millard West High School

Will Sippel Millard South High School

Nolan Thurston Lincoln North Star None

Lindsay Vecchio Elkhorn South None

Colten White Lincoln North Star

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 6:28 AM CDT

Last Revision: December 9th, 2019

*Digital Debate Note (added 5/16/20):

1) I can handle just about any speed in person. The same doesn't hold true for online debate (at least until I get better equipment/get used to it). I hate telling people to slow down, but you should slow down during online debates. I will indicate via the chat function or by interrupting if you are lagging (just as I would say clear).

2) If someone drops out of the round via connection issues, we will pause the speeches.

3) Just like you wouldn't cheat by chatting with a coach during an in-person tournament, don't cheat in online debate.

4) Don't record the round without the permission of the tournament and everyone in the room.

TL;DR

Email for evidence/cases: colwhite54@gmail.com

I’ve coached or debated in just about every event, and I’ll do my best to adjudicate the debate as fairly as I can. Your best strategy is probably to make the arguments that you think would be the best arguments to win the debate. As long as you can do that while being a kind and ethical competitor, then you’re good to go. Respect the other people in the room and don’t be a jerk.

Let me know if you have any questions that aren’t answered by this paradigm.

Commonly asked questions about my preferences on a spectrum (heavily dependent on context - you do you 95% of the time):

Truth over Tech <----------------X---------> Tech Over Truth

It’s probably not my job to say what’s true, but silly arguments have a much higher threshold of persuasion.

Speed <----X---------------------> NO Speed

I mostly judge on a local circuit, but assume I can follow unless I say clear/speed.

“Trad” <------------------X-------> “Progressive/Circuit”

I dislike these descriptors, so try to be more specific with your questions.

Debate the Topic <----X---------------------> Non-T

I’ve personally read and voted for/against both, but I usually prefer if you debate the topic.

Quality of Evidence <-X------------------------> A Billion Terrible Cards

Number Your Arguments <-------X-------------------> Say “AND” between each card/analytic

Experience

I am the head coach at Lincoln Southeast High School, the former head coach at Lincoln North Star High School, and a former assistant coach at Lincoln East High School. I have been coaching since 2015. I run the Lincoln-Douglas Camp at the Nebraska Debate Institute. In college I won the 2018 national championship in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Forensics Association National Tournament after debating with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for three years. I was one of two American debaters to be chosen for the 2019 Tour of Japan through the National Communication Association’s Committee on International Discussion and Debate’s partnership with the Japan Debate Association. I also coached debate in Shanghai, China during 2018 through a summer fellowship with LearningLeaders. I competed in Nebraska high school debate for 4 years.

Events I most often judge/coach (in order):

HS/College Lincoln-Douglas

HS Policy/CX

HS Public Forum

HS Congress

WSDC (HS Worlds)

British Parliamentary (College Worlds)

American Parliamentary/NPDA (College)

HEnDA (Japanese HS Policy)

Specific Preferences Based on Events

HS LD

I evaluate the framework first and then look at which debater has the biggest and/or most contextualized offense under that framework. If I cannot distinguish your offense from your opponent’s offense, it is difficult for me to assess how the framework operates in the round. You have to tell me why your offense applies to whichever framework we’re using and why your opponent’s offense doesn’t matter or isn’t as important.

Ks are fine, phil is fine, LARP is fine, etc. Just don’t assume I know your lit. Hold yourself to a high threshold of explanation and go for one or two well-developed arguments rather than many arguments that are barely touched on.

Flex Prep: If both debaters are okay with asking questions during CX, then it's fine. I would prefer if you do not skip CX and use the rest as prep time. If you cut CX short, that starts cutting into your prep time.

I will not vote on your short, barely warranted a priori arguments that don’t connect back to a standard. You don’t get an auto-affirm/negate by dunking on silly trick args.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

HS Policy

Refer to the College LD paradigm to answer most of your questions. The only warning I’ll give you is that theory justifications that have to do with the exact format of partner policy debate need to be explained since I usually judge 1-1 policy through college LD. I’m not totally up to date on the cutting edge of thinking about best practices in policy, but that just means you’ll have to warrant your theory args and win them rather than pander to my theoretical biases.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

College LD (NFA-LD)

Yes, I do want the speechdocs.

I don’t find appeals to the rules persuasive.

Ks are fine - contextualize the links as much as you can. I want to know how the alt functions and differs from the Aff.

I will vote neg on presumption if the aff doesn’t function (I won’t vote for an aff with no solvency because they have a “risk of offense” - you have to win that you have a risk of offense).

I don’t need proven abuse to vote on T or theory and I default to competing interps (unless the Aff wins reasons why the neg does need proven abuse or wins reasonability, but that’s hard to do)

Disclosure theory is probably underrated in college LD.

Do not run full-source citations theory.

Public Forum

Don’t read actual plans or counterplans in an attempt to adapt to an LD/Policy judge. However, because I know what these positions are, I won’t drop you or your opponents because they read something that you thought was a plan/CP but wasn’t. Same goes for Ks/Theory Shells (however, theoretical justifications for things like definitions and observations - framework light - are super encouraged).

Read cards rather than paraphrase if you can.

Login to Tabroom

NSCTA State Debate Championships

2018 — Lincoln, NE/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges