I graduated from Blue Valley North in 2019 and I'm now a sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I debated policy all four years of high school, mostly participating on the Nat Circuit. I qualified and went to the TOC my senior year, as well as going to other national tournaments like CFL and NFL throughout the years.

I don't know a ton about the topic this year, so bear with me. I judged a decent amount last year but haven't much this year. That being said, what is below should still apply.

My email is ellieanderson295@gmail.com if you want to add me to the email chain or have any questions.

GENERAL PARADIGM (Mostly applies to policy but read it anyway.)

Whatever your typical style of debate is, I'm probably fine with. However, I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic so if talking about super complicated jargon, take some time to clarify for me.

General Notes: I typically default to tech over truth, just because I think it's the best way to evaluate the debate that's the most fair for both sides and relies mainly on the skill of the debater.

I WILL vote on presumption if you prove the aff doesn't do anything-- a logical argument against a bad aff is better than a bad disad against a bad aff.

Topicality: I typically default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise-- contextual definitions are good. Prove in round abuse.

Disads: If your disad doesn't make sense, it's going to take a lot to get me to vote for it, unless the aff also doesn't make sense. Spend time on impact framing in the rebuttals is extremely important-- especially if you're going for a DA without a counterplan. Disad turns the case can also be a very valuable argument.

Counterplans: You can read pretty much any counterplan in front of me but if it is super abusive and the aff makes a logical argument on why it shouldn't be allowed I will reject it. Most times I'll just reject the counterplan, not the team, unless the argument is really convincing. Judge kick is good.

K's: I'm good with most K's until you start getting into POMO stuff-- aka I'm not a fan of Baudrillard and similar authors, but will have a good time if you read K's like anti-blackness, neolib, queer theory, etc. I think you need a coherent explanation of your alt and if you can't understand it you shouldn't be reading it.

Theory: Condo is usually good unless it's absolutely and obviously abusive or dropped by the neg. I'll listen to any theory argument but probably won't vote on it unless I can see abuse in round, again unless it's completely dropped.

Feel free to ask me any questions if I forgot anything, good luck!

LD: I am a classical LD Judge. I weigh a round through the lens of a Value Criterion, and who bests achieves that. A side must best show why I should follow their value and criterion, and whoever best achieves that will decide how I weight the round.

Following that, I then evaluate who bests achieves the goal of the Value Criterion that won, and who best achieves an ideal world through that value. You can still win a round when you lost the Value and Criterion Debate, and I overall emphasize the power of understandable and topical arguments. I will hear Ks, but they must be topical, and tie back to the topic, otherwise, in my eyes they can be defeated by the other side arguing they are non-topical. Flex prep in my eyes is also in poor taste. And be respectful of your opponents. Further, this is LD. You do not need a plan to prove the aff. That is the job of policy or congress. We're the folk who find out what is and is not moral, not on whether it is possible. Further, I don't like Meta Arguments. They have nothing to do with the topic, and each time I hear one, all I hear is someone complaining they didn't get the side they wanted. Additionally, while you can pre-disclose, I only judge what is actively said in round, and nothing else. If you give me a case and don't say anything about it, I won't take your case and take only what you said.

Note: I have generally poor hearing. I can hear quieter people, but when you speed-read, things begin to slur together for me, and I will be unable to flow your speech. I will preface this is I think it will be an issue in round, but ignoring this warning will typically lead to me dropping most of your points as I simply will not be able to flow them.

Congress: For congress, I evaluate 3 main things; Quality of Speech, Content of Speech, and Relevance to the Debate. Quality of Speech is how you present your speech, and the mannerisms and how you present yourself. Content is how much reliable evidence you have, and how you tie it in. Relevance is how much you actually debate, by not rehashing and being relevant in the debate, through rebuttals and building on previous speeches. I do not weigh in favor or against relevant openers, but I do frown upon irrelevant tangents, and will deduct points for being rude.

Secondly, given how we are dealing with real and tangible issues, treat them like it. I am the biggest proponent of levity in congress as an effective way to decrease tension, but if it goes to the point where you are making jokes about people being killed or harmed, I will decrease points, and depending on the severity of the statements, bring these up to your coach.

Note: Identity Politics is something, that unlike other trad-judges, I will hear. If you are debating against it, be VERY CAREFUL about what you say. I myself am a Pansexual, Transwoman Gnostic of Romani and Traveller Descent. The one thing I will not tolerate is bigotry, and the fastest way to immediately lose out on any chance of winning is to claim any one group of people is better or that their conditions are just. In congress, keep in mind these are active issues you are discussing, some of which hurt real people. Do not treat pain as a joke or blatantly call for someone else's harm. I will immediately drop you, and depending on what is said, if it is particularly nasty, I will drop you.

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.

7/10 on speed, so long as your tags are clear, you're not using speed to obfuscate or misrepresent evidence, and voters are delivered intelligibly.

Policy: I am most comfortable judging a stock-issues oriented policy round. In particular, solvency arguments can be decisive. Generic DAs are fine, but a specific link to the 1AC will always be more compelling. K's are fair game as well, but I tend to want a more specific link for a K than a DA. Common Ks like the Cap K or Fem K are exceptions to this - those Ks are common enough that the Aff should be prepared to debate them regardless. I take a tabula rasa approach to any question surrounding the "role of the ballot," so if you win ROB in a particularly favorable fashion, it can set you up very nicely.

LD: I am extremely comfortable evaluating framework arguments. I prefer a Value/Criterion framing structure for LD, but won't complain if you do something different, so long as you meet the resolution (assuming it isn't a K aff - I tend to view Ks as Neg ground).

General: I expect a bit more than simply regurgitating pieces of evidence. Analysis isn't necessary for every piece of evidence, but if there is a string of cards building some sort of overarching argument, one or two sentences wrapping it up shouldn't be too much to ask. This is especially true for any rebuttals!!

There is almost no chance of me voting for an RVI, unless there is a case of in-round abuse.

Debate Experience:

4 Years at Lansing High School

3 Years at University of Nebraska- Single-person policy.

Past Graduate Assistant for the University of Nebraska debate.

Head Coach at Lincoln NorthStar for 3 Years

3L in law school. Education Law and Policy.

My email is dikecolin@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain OR do a speech drop.... tbh I prefer speech drop at this point in my career. It is much simpler.

Few things before I go into specifics:

1. Clipping will lose you the round and any chance you had at getting a speaker award

2. Disclosure is always good and necessary. This does not guarantee you a ballot if you are losing on the standards debate, but it should tell you that I am very sympathetic to the education claims.

3. DO NOT be an ass. You don't look cool and will not be rewarded.

4. If the opposing team drops a DA or something that is obviously a round winner- do not waste my time. Just extend the dropped argument and sit down.

5. Go as fast as you you want. Just make sure that you are CLEAR and you are SIGN POSTING between cards...... see how I accented those with font and you read it in your brain with a different tone..... do that with your voice on tags and dates.

6. Arguments that I will not find appealing-

-Nuclear terrorism.....like who is giving them the nuke...and how are they developing them? Also, I'm just skeptical of underlying assumptions from people reading Islamic terrorism bad.

-Death good

-Wipeout

-Spark

-Bad impact turns (Racism good, Warming good)

7. Things That Annoy Me:
A) Flowing off the speech doc, then answering cards that weren't read, etc
B) Responding to blippy 2ac theory args without a warrant (e.g., "no neg fiat, voting issue") FOR FORTY FIVE SECONDS!!!
C) Reading un-highlighted cards.

---------------------------Crowe Warken (NDT)---------------------------------

If you are from NFA-LD. Do not read this. Its not for you.

I am a new judge to NDT. A few things:

1) Speed: You all do not fall under point 5 above- Go slower on tags (IDC about the speed you go through the card text). You should probably be going 50%-60% speed on T/Theory debates (the same speed you go on tags). Yes, that's annoying, I apologize. Also- perhaps a hot take- I think flashing analytics and T blocks is good. If you pre-wrote it and it is the best version of your argument, you should not be afraid that the other team understands your arg and should not hope to win on dropped args from speed. The purpose of this addendum is that I am very willing to be lenient on you going faster on T/Theory args if they are in the doc and I can refer back to them. I am talking 75% speed max.

2) If your 2NR/2AR is not starting by writing my ballot, you are doing it wrong. That is not to say that this narrows and precludes other offenses on the rest of the flow, but it does frame the first things I look at when making my decision AND helps you clarify what you think your route to the ballot is for me. The alternative is you charging the mound on me for not seeing your obscure route to the ballot which isn't rad.

3) My paradigm for judging is not going to be nearly as refined as your seasoned NDT vet. or your ordinal 1 pref. My RFD is probably not going to flow like an elegant story that wraps up every issue in the debate. As such, please feel free to ask questions after the round and I will always give you the thoughts I have.

***********************************HIGH SCHOOL LD*****************************************

I come from a policy background. Use that to your advantage. If you want to read value/criterion, you need to have specific instructions on how I weigh impacts under the value.

If you are interested in going for a really dense philosophy argument, I am going to be more work as a judge because of my relative newness to LD. Make sure you are impacting out all the claims you are going for. I also am just not a fan of super old philosophers from the 1600s. It seems to be more of a race to obscurity than actually doing "philosophical" debate as debaters indicate.

STOP ASKING IN CX TO "SUM UP YOUR POINTS." It defeats the whole point of CX. This goes for every format, but it is the worst in LD.

I am all for us sharing evidence. You should always be ready to share your evidence with the other team. If you don't, I am very easily persuaded by arguments saying you can't prove the truth or falsity of the other teams arguments.

If you are reading a framing argument that says that there is a specific burden for the aff/neg (we only have to defend one subsidy is bad, the aff has to repeal all subsidies to meet their burden, ect.), then you need to win standards to win this argument.

Speaker points can be increased if you separate the framing debate from the case debate- (put them on their own sheet of paper). I flow debates this way and deeply appreciate when debaters do this because the clash is all in one place.

Please don't reach to saying an argument is abusive if you don't have another answer. Most of the time it isn't abusive, you just haven't thought of an answer yet.

Neg Kritiks in LD need to have more work done in the 1NC than in policy. Just reading the link, impact, and alt in the 1NC creates super late-breaking debates that always favor the neg and creates poor clash because the aff has to respond to 6 minutes of functionally new offense in as 3 minute 2AR. To that end- I think any representations, Role of the ballot/judge, and alt solves the aff arguments should be in the 1NC. Not doing this substantially lowers my willingness to lean neg on theory objectification (Condo, floating piks bad, etc.)

Underviews with theory preempts are fine, but YOU NEED TO SLOW DOWN. I have to have time to flow the arguments. I generally believe that any prewritten theory should be 1) Flashed and 2) disclosed.

Please read the rest of this paradigm- the things I think in policy that are explained generally transfer to LD- specifically on the theory stuff.

*************************************Policy Debate********************************************************

**Topicality vs. Plan Text

I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating topicality debates. However, this isn’t permission to blow through your 1NC interp and 2NC blocks as fast as you can. The fastest way to get a decision that you don't like is to poorly sign post between arguments and not give me at least a little pen time. Specifically, slow down on nuanced arguments that intersect multiple standards (Bi-directionality controls ground because.....). My views on T primary revolve around the following:

1. T is always a voter and never a reverse voter!

2. Reasonability is a way to determine the sufficiency of the aff’s counter-interp; not whether or not the aff is “reasonably topical.” Delete the phrase "reasonably topical" from your vocabulary. Too many times in high school debates, 1AR and 2AR’s do a poor job of extending reasonability. Saying “good is good enough” is not an argument. You need to give reasons why reasonability is preferable to competing interpretations.

3. Contextualized interactions between different standards (ie: limits controls the direction of ground, or precision determines the lit base for which a team derives limits offense, etc.) needs the most explanation for me, however I find them very compelling.

**T-USfg

I am ok with this argument vs non-topical affs. Reading it is by no means a silver bullet and sometimes a counter-method goes further, but dont feel like you should or should not read this argument.

As far as defense goes I generally am under the impression that T is a floor not a ceiling and discussions of aff’s internal links can happen via topical versions of the affirmative. TVA and switch side debate are defensive arguments and must be paired with a net benefit to win!

**Theory

I love theory debates. The fact that you can debate about the rules of debate makes it the best game out there. I am ok with almost any theory argument if you have a justification for why it produces good education.

Grain of salt- theory debates require the fastest typing and flowing because it is frequently your own words and has the fewest cards. If you want me to understand, you want to slow down to like 75% so I can get everything on my flow.

Generally, condo is good, and delay CP's are abusive

Fairness is a sliding scale. Even if you think I might err neg on condo in a debate with one conditional advocacy, that default level can be reduced by things like multi-plank conditional CP's, CP's with no solvency advocate, etc.

I am also a big fan of whole res v/ plan text theory args in LD.

**CP

I am a big advocate for nuanced and developed counterplans, and believe it is one of the most strategic ways to subsume aff offense. I default to sufficiency framing until told otherwise. If there is no clear victor in the theory debate I will usually default negative.

I generally think that CP’s should be textually and functionally competitive but feel free to tell me otherwise. I tend to lean negative on theory and think that most objections are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

**DA

I’m a fan. Try to read specific links, because I am of the opinion that generic links are usually punished by link thumpers. The 2NR should do impact calc and make turns case arguments.

I am willing to vote on zero percent risk of a link if you clarify that there is zero percent of a link with a justification.

**K

I am always open to K’s but not very familiar with all of the literature. Please refrain from assuming I know what you’re talking about or using buzz words. “death good” K’s or any other assorted shenanigans are not compelling and is a poor strategy for earning my ballot. I think the K should have specific links to plan action rather than to the status quo or links of omission. I think permutations are very compelling against Ks that are not contextualized to the affirmative’s policy. Alternatives need to be clearly explained. I will not do the work for you. One of my biggest frustrations is that some judges seem to front kids alt solvency because the neg tosses around big words. I am not that type of judge; the negative should be responsible for defending the actualization/implementation of the alt.

K's that I have read and have a good understanding of- Militarism, Securitization, Identity (Queerness, Anti-Blackness, Fem, ect.) Spanos, Pan, Warming Reps, Terror Reps, Adaptations of Heidegger, Anthropocentrism.

K's that I am harder to sell on because my knowledge of the lit base is low: Deluze/Guattari, Spacialization, Semio-Cap,

K's that I just really do not like at all: Baudrillard, Battallie, a lot of abstract post-modern philosophy.

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

Hi! email: rodneyedwards402@gmail.com

Former School: Millard North High School (Omaha, Nebraska)

Competition Record: Competeted in LD, Congress and Extemp for 3 years. Qualified to nationals my senior year in the House.

Judging Record: Judged Congress at Nationals in Prelims and Sems. Judged local Nebraska PF and LD Circuit for 5 years.

Congress

-Direct clash is critical. You are not speaking in a vacuum.

-I don’t care about in-depth explanations about who you’re citing as long as you’re citing it truthfully and the warrant is there/true.

-Make your speeches interesting by actually telling me something new or important.

PF

I'm pretty comfortable in just about any round. I'm open to voting for unorthodox arguments, as long as they're fleshed out and weighed well. Weighing your arguments should be your go to in front of me. Speed shouldn't be an issue. If there is an evidence issue, address it in the round. I'm not morally opposed to theory in PF, but it better actually be abusive.

LD

I'm pretty familiar overall with the format and argumentation styles. (Theory, T, Phil, CP's...) Try not to get hyper-specific with any jargon. Please send me docs and tell me if you didn't read certain cards. I enjoy hearing interesting philosophical arguments, and I don't like tricks. I'm open to different types of arguments as long as you explain well what the role of the ballot is supposed to be. I default to a "competiting worlds" paradigm. If you want me to vote for something, tell me and argue why. I'll usually always disclose. If there is any likely tech issue, try to inform me before the round if possible, but I will be understanding if something happens in round.

If something's not addressed here, feel free to ask before the round!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bio

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

General Notes

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

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

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

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

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

Speed

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

Standards

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

Theory

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

Kritiks/Performance

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

I have a preference for traditional style cases but limited experience or preference for progressive style cases; I approach debates with an open mind and a commitment to fairness and impartiality. While I may not have extensive familiarity with progressive arguments, I am willing to listen and evaluate them based on their merits within the framework of the debate.

When evaluating traditional-style cases, I look for clear structure, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who prioritize clarity of expression and adherence to established debate norms such as value criterion analysis and clash. I appreciate debaters who effectively use rhetoric and persuasion to support their positions. Additionally, I prefer debaters not to speed in their delivery, as clarity and comprehension are paramount in effective communication.

In regards to progressive style cases, while I may not be as familiar with the specific arguments and frameworks, I am still interested in learning and understanding new perspectives. I encourage debaters to explain their arguments clearly and provide sufficient context for me to evaluate their contentions. I value creativity and originality in argumentation, but I also expect debaters to maintain a level of coherence and relevance to the resolution.

My judging paradigm emphasizes the importance of clear communication, logical reasoning, and adherence to debate conventions. While I may lean towards traditional style cases due to my familiarity with them, I am committed to evaluating all arguments fairly and impartially, regardless of style or approach. Debaters can expect me to prioritize substance over style and to provide constructive feedback to help them improve their skills regardless of the type of case they present.

LD Paradigm

I have 4 years of high school LD and PF experience. I also have several years of high school coaching experience and judging experience, including significant experience with circuit debate. I am traditional in the sense that I enjoy a well-organized, well-supported, logical debate. I am big on impacts and well-explained/well-supported arguments. That being said, I am generally a tech over truth judge - Though I have preferences, I strongly believe that the judge’s role is to enter each round as a blank slate and vote based on what is happening in the particular round. I am open to and enjoy hearing different types of arguments (K's, theory, performance, etc.), so long as the aforementioned criteria are met. I only vote on what I hear in the round and despise rounds where I have to make a lot of logical leaps to get to a decision. I am also a big fan of crystallization, and for that reason, I generally dislike line-by-line in the 2AR. In short, I like to be entertained during the round, and I expect the debater to persuade me by winning the interactions in round interactions.

I am generally comfortable with speed as long as you are enunciating and I can understand you. That being said, I am not going to drop my pen, say “clear,” etc. when you are going too fast/not understandable. It is up to you to ensure that you are communicating in a way that I can follow. If I’m not flowing, you probably need to slow down and/or speak more clearly. Please note, while speed typically does not influence my win/loss decision, it may influence speaker points. I believe speaker points are reflective of communication skills, and talking as fast as possible does not necessarily highlight those skills. My perfect 30 speaker will be able to communicate not only quickly, but with clarity, confidence, and eye contact.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask or email me at mhenninger@adventip.com.

In General

Speed reading:

Please, Please, PLEASE do not speed read when giving your speeches. First off, I've had several concussions, so if your goal is to try and ensure that your judge has a sensory overload mid-round... then I guess I can't really judge kindly on your morals as a person. Second off, in my personal opinion I believe it is a super cheap way to win a round. Listing off several bullet points at your top speed to me feels like cheating because an opponent can not argue several points in the matter of a few minutes. (So please for love of everything logical do not Speed Read.)

Speaker Points:

I judge my speaker points based off of how well you are as a speaker. If you are slouched over and looking straight to your computer without making eye contact then your speaks are not gonna be 30/30. I will lower speaks if you speed read as well, a good speaker will speak at a conversational pace. I believe that speaker points are not based off of how you give your arguments and how you flow through the round, but how you present yourself

Bad Arguments:

Please, Please, Please do not start advocating for things like World War III or death to all people of the world just for fun and because it's "edgy". These types of arguments are not fun listening to without a full understanding on how they should be run because it doesn't lead to any good voters for myself to even look towards. (If you know how to properly run them and even your coach agrees that it makes sense, then go ahead and do it)

LD

Counter-Plans:

I am not a huge fan of Counter-Plans on the Affirmative or Negative. Most of them are kinda just super abusive and noneducational. The biggest issue I find is how can your opponent prepare for a counter-plan if they only planned for the resolution as stated? It leads to an unfair/abusive debate sooooooo... please refer to a regularized case.

DA’s and Perms:

i much less know what a DA is fully and after talking to Policy debaters/coaches, most debaters on the LD Circuit do not fully understand as well. Not really something I would vote on so please refrain from using them.

Theories:

Please only use disclosure if there is a specific issue before the round starts. This goes along with issues such as disabilities or impairments. I am not likely to buy an argument for disclosure if you state that it is unfair because you do not know what your opponent's case is going to be about. (Not knowing allows for more critical thinking rather than blocking out arguments with pure consequentialism)

I will vote on a theory shell if it outlines what your opponent did to break said rules of a Lincoln-Douglas debate round. I don't really want to hear anything over something that goes outside of the LD style. Such as both debaters ought to discuss a counter-plan would not be considered something that I would approve.

Performance Case:

Currently as of right now, I am working towards my bachelor's of the arts (theatre) and will be working towards a more specialized degree in the professional theatre industry. I will gladly listen to cases that are more performative and include things such as props or listen to someone try and sing their case to me. The only issue is that in doing so, I expect you have a sense of purpose for choosing this route in

My Ballot:

I tend to be more of a traditional judge. The biggest issue within the round I want to be resolved within the round is the moral obligation of the actor within the resolution. If the resolution applies ought within the wording then I think of the resolution as a question of ought. What does the actor ought to do? What is the obligation of the actor to do said action? It becomes a moral question for what obligation I as a judge ought to vote by. This leads to consequential arguments being weighed less since just because the action will lead to a benefit doesn't mean that the actor is obligated to do said action.

PF

This is my first year with judging Public Forum, meaning that you are going to want to avoid using any abbreviations or terms that are typically understood by common judges and debaters. I am going to be open to pretty much any arguments that are well warranted, but please DO NOT FALSIFY EVIDENCE. I have heard a few times from last year that some teams are a little sketchy with their evidence whether it was local tournaments or national circuit. If I found any sketchy data that you present then I will be a bit more harsh on speaks and more willing to listen to your opponent advocating to drop it.

Cross-Ex:

Please ensure that you are not being overtly aggressive to the other team, especially during Crossfire and trying to take away the ability for your opponent(s) to ask questions. I am not someone who enjoys watching people try act super aggressive during round because that's "how you win" or "that's how debate works" because honestly it is kind of d*** move and makes it super awkward to watch as a judge. (This goes for outside of round and outside of Cross-Ex as well)

These are just the biggest points I wanted to focus on within my paradigm, but if you have any other specific questions please feel free to ask.

If you have questions outside of the tournament, or on a round I judged and you cannot find me. Contact me on either my

Email: cdjackson2000@gmail.com

Along with this, my email may be on the paradigm though I do not wish to be on the shared document in round.

I am a Hastings Senior High alumni and for those that know (that means I am very traditional in style). I did LD for three years but also helped and did a couple of tournaments in Congress, Big Questions, and a few rounds of Parliamentary style. I am currently on the Concordia Speech team doing exempt and other limited prep speech events. If you do not know Hastings is very traditional in style, this is what that means for me.

1. I do not, particularly like speed. I tolerate speed as long as you are clear to hear; I can reasonably understand the point you are trying to make. This means that if I have a confused look or stop flowing on my page, that means that I do not understand. I cannot vote for a side that was given so fast I cannot even hear it. I can't vote for a side that was given so quickly I can't also listen to it. 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 — quality over quantity. I will not say clear because this is an educational speaking event that means that you should look at the people around and pick up on cues. Also, NOTHING about speed is going to prepare you for your future. In the adult, would the content matters, not how many words per minute you can speak. No one gets an education with speed.

2. Do not be so focused on your case that you do not clash with your opponent. Clash is what makes it debate; otherwise, I am just listening to two people talk, and there is no purpose of it.

3. If you are doing LD, then do LD. Run policy style in Policy, not in LD/PF/CON! There are different types of debate for a reason, so there is no need to combine them. I have seen and ran all kinds of Policy in LD, and it does not belong there. There are different types of debate for a reason, so there is no need to combine them. I will NEVER vote for a Kritik that ends up in nuclear war or the end of the world. I will automatically vote you down for many reasons. Also, I was taught that the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution right. This means I will NEVER vote for critical affs! The purpose of the Debate is that you learn how to debate on an issue given to you. Again debate is to be educational, and if you take away from that education by running a bizarre case, you will not be voted for.

4. I am not ok with flex prep time. If you want to ask questions, then ask during CX, not prep. The exception to this is if you are requesting to see the evidence.

5. This is a professional education event, and unless there is a medical condition preventing you from standing, then you need to be standing. In the real world, you look more professional this way. The exception to this is during the grand crossfire in PF.

6. Debate prepares you for your future. For many of your prospects, you will be able to act and look professional. This includes professional vocabulary.

7. If you are using a computer/stand/desk/papers/etc. Then make sure you are not hiding behind it. I want to see you, not the back of your computer or papers.

8. Give me clear and concise voters. State voter one, voter two, and so on.

9. I want to see the impacts and big pictures. I like to know why this matters, what will happen in the scenarios you are presenting, and why I should care. I want Aff world looks like... and Neg world looks like.... at the end of voters this is an easy way to make a clear ballot for me.

10. I do not discount any theory just because, in the real world, it is not 100% achievable. If you can explain your argument well enough and it is logical and considers real-world possibilities, then I will not be opposed to it.

11. I will buy almost any argument as long as it is logical. Take me on the trip from point A to point B step by step. Do not be portraying; tax cuts will lead to the end of the world. Keep common sense in mind.

12. I am ok with single standard cases, but I would prefer to see both value and criterion. I can see the need to have only one standard if it makes sense. PLEASE DO NOT USE A FILLER VALUE. If you have a filler value, just run it as a single standard.

13. Do not argue after the round with me. I will drop your speaker points as it is insulting and offensive to me as your judge, your opponent, and to many observers. You can ask me questions about the round and why I decided the way I did, but arguing with me over it will not change my decision ever. I will also be reporting any rudeness and arguing with me to your coach. Be mindful of this.

14. I will gladly answer any questions that you have for me before the round or after the series about how it went. I am here to help you and give you advice. If I am giving out information on your case/presentation style, please make a note; otherwise, I will get frustrated if you put the same thing in front of me twice.

15. Please treat your judges as people; this makes sure that we are creating a constructive community in the debate world. The same goes for your opponent; we sometimes only see our opponents as people to beat, but they are just as much of a person as you are.

For Congress

1. Everything that is in my LD/PF applies to Congress.

2. One amendment will solve EVERYTHING!

3. Also, I do not want to hear rehash!

That's all. Thanks!

My email is meganemmaj@gmail.com. If I'm judging your round, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Background:

Did Policy debate my freshman year at Lincoln Park High school and my junior and senior year at Millard North High School; Most of experience was in the Nebraska Circuit, but I went to debate camp and attended a few NatCircuit tournaments.

I spent most of Junior and Senior year running identity Ks and other critical arguments. I'm familiar with some Ks, but don't assume I'm well-versed in your literature - I'll need a good explanation of your theory to vote for you. I'm comfortable judging policy v. policy debates, just don't expect me to have any prior knowledge about your arguments or to know what your abbreviations mean.

I'm fine with speed, but I haven't judged in a while and the Milo Cup will be my first time judging virtually, so consider slowing down a little bit or at the very least make sure to slow down for tags and analytics and make it clear to me when you are switching flows.

Paradigm:

There are no specific arguments that I am strongly for or against. I have biases like any other judge, but I'll do my best to evaluate the round according to what I have on my flow. If you provide a framework for me to judge the round with and defend it, I will evaluate the round accordingly.

AFF:

I expect you to have a good understanding of your arguments and be able to explain it clearly and consistently throughout the round. Extend your AFF and try to refer back to your evidence as much as possible to contextualize your arguments in every speech.

I don't care if you're topical, but I will vote for framework if you don't have a good answer to it.

Framework is a very technical argument, so it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, especially when you're having the same framework debate over and over again. Please just make sure you're prepared to defend your form of debate, and engage directly with the neg arguments. The best FWK rounds happen when you make your answers specific to your affirmative and (as much as possible) unique to the round.

NEG:

Whatever arguments you're running, make sure you explain how they link to the affirmative, and why they are a reason to vote neg.

If you are reading a K, make the link as specific as possible and give me a specific reason not to vote on the Perm, especially if it's a K vs. K debate.

I'm definitely willing to vote on framework as long as you can convince me that your impacts are important, and that the AFF being non-topical leads to those impacts. Ideally you should be making FWK arguments that are specific to the affirmative and engage with their answers. Just because you are running framework doesn't mean you should be regurgitating the same generic speeches in every round.

Yes I do want the speech doc. ben.r.lampman@gmail.com

I debated LD 4 years at Millard North and saw a fair amount of both nat circuit and traditional rounds. I'm a first year out.

Im probably somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, as much as I love progressive debate, sometimes i'm baby, so just explain everything clearly and try to spread clearly pretty please.

Pre-Round Etiquette -

• 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.
• Disclosure is encouraged, but not required. If it's nat circ disclose, if it's trad I don't care.
• Pronouns! Tell me them! (Mine are he/him/his !)

Speed:

If I have a speech doc, i'm way more lenient, but I can flow a decent amount of spreading, just don't like, break the sound barrier or anything. Also please don't use speed as a weapon. I will tank your speaks.

How to get my ballot:

I normally will vote on anything, but I probably will gut check theory if I'm asked. If it isn't discussed in round, it wont come into the RFD. The arguments I prefer are: Larp>K's>Phil>Theory>Tricks

Just run what you like and have fun! I will vote on memey and fun arguments if you give me a reason to vote (And probably give pretty high speaks if the antics are appreciated)

On the flipside, it irks me to no end when debaters read memey arguments just to troll. If you don't actually prove why you have better access to the ballot than your opponent, you lose. Simple as.

(Also as a caveat: If the aff reads something that's like extremely serious or emotional, please do not meme it really ruins the brand and i will look like this >:-o)

Literally just clearly explain your args within the context of the round and why it should win the ballot. Make me do as little work as possible and we'll be gucci

Comment on Theory: This was the arg I had the least amount of experience with. I'm like still okay with evaluating the args but I need 1) a significant decrease in speed 2) articulation, enunciation, clarity and 3) explicit weighing to feel comfortable voting on it -> run at your own risk bc i'm telling you, you will probably Not be happy w my decision!!! Also, on disclosure theory, I'm incredibly uncomfortable evaluating violations when they're in the form of hearsay and screenshots and especially when I'm not in the room.

Also I will NOT vote on:

-Racism

-Homophobia

-Transphobia

-Sexism

-Literally anything on the same grain. Be a good person please please please please please it isn't that hard

Speaks

Im normally pretty generous on speaks, but a few pro gamer tricks:

Things that bolster speaks:

-Explaining arguments well enough that its clear that you know them inside and out

-Not being an a**hole

-Being nice to novices should you hit them

-Having a unique case

-Being able to name 30 distinct pokemon

-Not horsing around

Ways to LOSE speaks

-Being an a**hole

-Being problematic

-Not caring about novices

-Reading a position that you very obviously do not know

-Just be nice and u wont lose any

-Admitting that you unironically enjoy skim milk

Misc:

Ask me for any other questions because I definitely didn't cover it all

And finally, as a great person once said:

Be rootin

Be tootin

By god be shootin.

But most importantly

Be kind.

she/her/hers. I am a cynical person.

-

Apparently, I vote affirmative 51% of the time. Sorry about that.

If your opponent says that your authors need to be a particular identity, I am fully expecting you to say that all of your authors are that identity. Lying is okay if your opponent is needlessly shifting the goalposts. Likewise, you do not win if your authors are x identity. That's literally anti-intellectual.

A K/CP must fulfill each: Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. If I don't understand your alt, that's probably bad. You should try to win something other than the CP.

I don't enjoy topicality debates. Yes, you should be topical. I do not care to adjudicate what is not topical enough. I will typically err on the side of 'more topical is better.' Theory arguments exist. I think they are rather boring. I do not vote on "norm setting." Fairness is a voter.

A good round discusses philosophy. I will vote on any cogent argument. This is not an invitation to read Kant. This IS an invitation to read extinction good.

The 2AR is not where you extend all the things you didn't have time to mention in the 1AR. If I vote on any late extensions, it's because I considered the round a coinflip.

Debate experience:

I have done four years of NFA LD at UNL, it is sorta like one person policy. For a kinda background in debate I run primarily identity-based arguments, ableism to be more specific. But you can run whatever you want in front of me.

My email is morganmcgee315@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain.

***********************************HIGH SCHOOL LD******************************************************

If you are going to talk about subjects like sexual assault, suicide, domestic violence, or other potentially triggering subjects you need to have a content warning before your case, and make sure that nobody in the room will be triggered by those subjects

TLDR: I am not a trad judge, I consider myself a progressive judge, so literally please do whatever you want in front of me, I will literally vote for anything, including disclosure theory. I didn't think I had to say this but don't use evidence with slurs of a group that you are not a part of i.e. don't read evidence with the word "cripple" if you are not disabled.

I don't know anything about Kant or philosophy do probably not the best judge for that kind of argument.

Don't read evidence from Peter Singer in front of me, I am not interested in evidence from somebody who justifies assault and genocide of my community.

K Affs: Go for it, I think K affs are fun.

K: I love Ks, but that being said they need to be good Ks, by that I mean do not read a k in front of me because you think I am a K hack because that is not going to go well for you. You need to have a good link (no link of omissions ew), you need to be able to explain your alternative, you need good reasons on why I should prefer ontology/epistemology first. I am most familiar with ableism literature, but if you explain to me your lit we should be fine. I'm cool with reps/rhetoric Ks. I am not the biggest fan of pomo. DO NOT READ ANYTHING BY NICK LAND IN FRONT OF ME, I WILL AUTOMATICALLY VOTE YOU DOWN AND GIVE YOU ZERO SPEAKS. HE IS A EUGENCIST AND AS DISABLED WOMAN I WILL NOT LISTEN TO ANY JUSTIFICATION OF EUGENICS.

DA: Try to read specific links because I am of the opinion that generic links are usually punished by link thumpers.

CP: if you are going to run them please know how to answer theory, nothing is worse than watching somebody read 3 cps and not knowing how to answer condo bad. I am a big advocate for nuanced and developed counterplans, and believe it is one of the most strategic ways to subsume aff offense. I default to sufficiency framing until told otherwise. If there is no clear victor in the theory debate I will usually default negative.I generally think that CP’s should be textually and functionally competitive but feel free to tell me otherwise. I tend to lean negative on theory and think that most objections are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

T USFg/Framework: Honestly as a k debater, not the biggest fan of these debates and quite honestly I have never seen this argument run well, that being said that doesn't mean I won't vote for it if it is well run. BUT IF YOU LOVE THIS ARGUMENT READ IT. I tend to default aff if there is no clear victor on this specific argument.

Flex Prep: If both debaters are okay with asking questions during CX, then it's fine.

Yes I will vote on in-round rhetoric arguments, so do not use racist/cissexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic language, and I'll give you zero speaker points.

You should share your evidence and disclose because both of those things create more education in the round and better debates, so I have a low threshold for voting for disclosure.

If you like didn't get the vibe, I'll make it really clear here, as a disabled debater and a coach to disabled students I AM ALL ABOUT MAKING THE DEBATE SPACE AS ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE. If your opponent tells you that they can't do speed, don't spread, if you do and speed theory is run I have a pretty low threshold on voting for speed bad. If your opponent asks for you to format your evidence a certain way, do it. If you need to communicate an access issue to me before the debate, please send me an email before the round. This is a private way for you to give me information that you do not want to share with the entire room (for example, if nonverbal communication isn't accessible to you).

Be rootin

be tootin

by god be shootin

but most importantly

be kind:)

Name

Jacob Moore

Where I'm from

Papillion, Nebraska

What I judge

LD

Paradigm

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

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

25-26 Poor

26-27 Below Average

27-28 Average

29-30 Above Average

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

My paradigm is very simple, as long as you can justify it I am willing to listen to almost any argument. Just make sure you know what you are talking about and are respectful to the other team. Also know I did run some unique arguments in high school so I am willing to listen to strange arguments you may have been working on. I love to see passion in debaters and I look forward to judging you who are reading this in the future

Not actively coaching anywhere at this time. I typically judge about 8 tournaments a year split between LD and Policy.

I have 2 years of high school LD debate, 2 years of high school policy, and 2 years of college parli & LD experience. I coached every debate event in Nebraska over the course of 10 years in various Nebraska high schools. I'm comfortable judging all events, but the paradigm is oriented towards LD and Policy debaters. Absolutely feel free to ask me questions before the rounds about my judging practices.

Speed - This will be challenging in the digital debate era. I would recommend starting at 75% of your top speed and working your way up. I will call clear if I can't hear you (either due to speed or due to technical issues). The most important thing if you want to speed read in front of me is that you MUST be organized. Number or label your arguments, clearly indicate when you are moving to the next flow/case, etc. and use those references as the debate continues.

Fiat - I handle this different in LD and Policy. The construct of policy debate created the concept of fiat and theory much more developed. I will evaluate arguments about how fiat isn't real or doesn't matter in policy debate, but my default paradigm is that fiat exists in every policy round. The opposite is true of Lincoln Douglas debate where I do not believe that fiat exists by default. If you choose to, for example, read a counter plan in LD against a traditional values case, the burden will be on you to bridge the theory gap and prove that fiat should exist in LD.

My name is Mashaylla Peterson, I am a judge for Hastings High School . I did LD debate for 4 years as well as going to nationals in world schools debate. I have competed and placed in Nat Quals congress, as well as learning *SOME* aspects of CX debate as well as judging speech and debaqte at the national level. This being said, I’m a very traditional judge. I enjoy LD because of the philosophy and moral appeal. I won’t typically vote for Kritiks or critical affirmatives unless the Role of the ballot and the rest of your case are on point. I DO NOT appreciate speed and I can’t flow what I don’t hear, so if you must speed, I suggest proper annunciation, and I would honestly ask that you make sure I know you are someone who speeds. Being said, SPEEDING and SPREADING are two VERY different things. I have not and will not vote for someone who spreads.

Here are things I've been typically known to vote on (some will be LD specific and some wont)

Framework- Any case should have framework that makes sense. I do expect (in varsity and especially at state, nat quals etc) that there is a framework debate that takes place. I also expect that the case you build goes with your framework and that you don't just have a bunch of random things put together. Basically at the end of the day I am and always will love a nice clear linkage throughout the ENTIRE case.

Value and Criterion- Considering this is LD's main focus besides your framework this is what I really want to see pulled all the way through the debate. I DO NOT appreciate circular standards, but I don't mind a well done single standard

Evidence: I don't typically like having to call and ask for evidence/philosophy but do keep in mind I put my heart and soul into LD.. I have been known in rounds to let you know if the philosophy in your case isn't correct or being used the right way, however I usually won't vote on incorrect evidence etc unless your opponent also notices and makes it part of the debate.

Last but not least my big expectation is to have clear impacts. At the end of the day as a judge I cant and do not want to vote for anything if I have no idea why I care about it. When doing impacts please also realize Micro Vs Macro debate. For instance if one of the impacts when I vote is: 3 million people die vs damage to the economy, typically its going to be way easier to vote for not killing a bunch of people. Obviously at the end of the day its going to be up to both debaters to bring the impacts down the flow so that I can see the harms vs the benefits of the aff/neg world

Other than things I have highlighted I am a pretty much anything goes judge. Good luck!

Pronouns: any

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

GENERAL NOTES

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

Note on Trigger Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

30

Perfect

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

29

Excellent

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

28

Good

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

27

Average

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

26

Below Average

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

25

Poor

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

24 and below

Offensive

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

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

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

Please add me on the email chain or if you have any questions: shriyasinghraghuvanshi@gmail.com

Hi! I am Shriya Singh (she/her/hers) and I debated at Millard North High School for 4 years in LD; I am currently studying political science and history at UNL. I am open to all types of arguments and case strategies as long as they are framed and executed well. With that being said, read what you are comfortable and can succeed with. :) <3

tldr:

- the way to my ballot is first and foremost impacting out the contention arguments and connecting them back to the framework

- I look at both contention and framework, you need to do work on both

- impacted out extensions made on the flow, rebuilding your case

- worst case scenario: i don't default to neg status quo right away, but the the aff needs to show me a glimmer of hope in order to overcome the neg

General

- please let me know before round, or asap if there is anything I can do to make the debate round more accessible to you. the activity is most fun when everyone can participate fairly and to their fullest extent!

- if there's a trigger warning (tw) in your case and your opponent asks you to not read it and that case/argument is still made in round you will immediately be dropped and reported. don't do it.

- speed: don't really care, go with a pace you're comfortable with and I'll shout out clear if I'm having trouble keeping up

- I pay attention during CX and what is said in CX is binding

- after your speech time has concluded you can finish up your sentence just don't try to finesse some args

- do not care about sitting/standing, eye contact/lack thereof, etc (your speaks are based off of your args and their quality and like if your being mean or something)

Flow

- please sign post and tell me what argument/contention/subpoint you are referring to and on what flow it is

- extensions: don't just say extend "xyz" please impact out the argument and tell me why explicitly I should care about that argument and what it does for the off/neg world

Actual Debate Stuff

Framework

- please collapse the values if you can

- weigh your framework against your opponents, why are you presenting me the better world under your framework?

- pre req. args, fw hijack, turns, try to not make them buzzwords, but they do add considerable weight in your favor when done correctly

Contention Level

- impact out your arguments, identify the effects of things, how you solve, how you do things better, etc, but please impact it out

- warrants should be used to contest arguments and rebuild your case (I don't usually call for evidence unless its going to be a deciding factor in the round)

- tie your contentions back to your framework

- cross apply, extend, and try to write the ballot for me, literally tell me why you are winning.

Phil/Tricks

- I understand basic level Phil and am responsive to it, but if you read it and execute it well its prolly fine, but please be clear in explaining your phil, I just don't know the dense stuff very well and ill get confused

- theory/tricks: clean extensions and implementation of them are very important, please refrain from hitting me with multiple offs for no reason

Kritiks

- open to all positions, please check with your opponent before round if it maybe triggering

- PLEASE WARRANT THE LINK, explain the link story and what your alternative does

- not particular over k over theory or vice versa, depends what happened in round, convince me why I should favor what you think matters more

- ROTB: you have the power to show me the potential of my signature, please do with appropriate impacts and application. Round goes to whomever wins the ROTB.

LARP/DA's

- CP's: needs to clearly solve and have a net benefit, DA over K , if not I will go for aff perm(s) and theory. the aff needs to show why the CP can't solve, beat the net benefit or show that the perm is superior

- DA's: I think they are legit, but you need to show why and how it links to the aff. I'll vote on non-uqniue args, but if not then I will go the aff's no link args, DA turn, or if they managed to outweigh on case v.s DA. impact clac is your best bet here

- condo: don't have an opinion against/in favor of it, so yeah go for ig. depends on how you manage to kick out of it and what happens after that. also remember to ask your opponent in cx the condition of the cp because I do hold the round accountable to cross-ex checks.

Theory/Topicality

- I think these args are most useful when they are used to confront actual abuse in round rather than to bully in the round, but I will listen to and vote on it but the aff needs to present a genuine reason as to why the off is present in the first place

- if its a wash I default to drop the arg, on theory I drop the debater on T, no RVI, creates bad norm/ethic, and competing interns

Disclosure

- don't care, but you should try to disclose if you can

Speaks

- I disclose speaks and then also try to give a reason why they are the way they are

- avg. is 28 and then up or down based off of round

- I do not discredit you for "lack of eye contact" or like "not standing" or "packing up early" do what you are comfortable with, its cool I literally do not care

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Speed is a no go for me but I will offer one “clear” to clarify pace. Mainly traditional but I can be open to new well supported thoughts

Last Updated Feb. 2022

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

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

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

THE ONLY PART OF THIS YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO READ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disads/CPs/policy arguments: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not read arguments that can be interpreted as glorifying suicide. This is a specific vein of death good that I do not want to hear. If you have questions, please ask before round.

I EXPECT YOU TO USE SOME WAY TO FILE SHARE FOR ALL DEBATES!!! THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS.

Disclosure updates in things i vote on section

I prefer for us to use speechdrop.net for file sharing but if we have to use one, add me to the email chain: dieseldebate@gmail.com

"debate is bigger than any one person. I believe in debate. I believe in the debate community. I believe that debate is one of the most valuable educational programs in the country and I am proud that it is my home."- Scott Harris

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college??? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. We have scholarships for dedicated debaters who want to invest in our program and would love to welcome you to our team!

_______________________

Experience:

Competing

2012-2016: Policy Debate at Lee's Summit West High School, 2x national qualifier [Transportation infrastructure, Cuba Mexico Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance]

2016-2020: NFA-LD at University of Nebraska-Lincoln [SOUTHCOMM, Policing, Cybersecurity, Energy]

2020 NFA-LD debater of distinction

Coaching

2018-2019: Justice Debate league Volunteer

2020: Lincoln Douglas Lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Institute

2020-2022: Assistant NFA-LD Coach for Illinois State University

2019-2023: Head LD coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

2022: Lab leader for the Collegiate Midwest Lincoln Douglas Cooperative

2022: Varsity LD and progressive argumentation lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Conference

2022-present: Assistant Director of Debate for the University of Nebraska- Lincoln (NFA-LD, some NDT-CEDA)

individuals who shaped my perspectives on debate: Justin Kirk, Adam Blood, Nadya Steck, Dustin Greenwalt

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Disclosure theory - if you read disclosure on either side and do not have open sources available for both sides on your wiki, I will massively doc your speaks. This argument exists to create better standards for debate. Failure to do so will result in dreadful speaks and a very easy out for your opponent to just say that you did not meet the burdens expressed in your argument.

theory out of 1AC

Speed theory (if justified, see speed section)

Framework v. K affs

Framework turns v. other positions (Ks, DAs, Case args)

CPs in HS LD

CP theory

Ks in HS LD (See K section in policy for specifics)

Speaking for others arguments (There are ways to not make this problematic. However, identity is very individualized and commodification of someone else's identity for your own gain is a problem for me. For instance, do not be a white male debater reading the narrative of a black woman.)

______________

NFA-LD/ Policy

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be respectful of individuals and their experiences.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: needing proven abuse is wrong. Affs that say dont vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterinterps that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad then warrant that out in the standards debate. I do say if you want to win T you need to go all in in the NR and win the full shell. When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. That being said I don't see theory as a means of winning the ballot. It is just a means of getting me to not evaluate an argument. This can be changed though. I have done a lot of weighing condo bad v. T. Theory v. theory is always a fun time. Warrant out why some shells are weighed first in the round and explain to me how different shells interact with each other. T is never a reverse voter though and neither is theory. Predictability is not determined by whether or not something is on the wiki or if you have seen it before. Predictability is based on whether or not an interpretation is predictable given the resolution. The same goes for reasonability. Negs who read T should be able to provide a TVA or establish that the education we get from judging the 1AC is bad for the topic.

DISADS: Run them. This is one of my favorite arguments to see and evaluate. I think it is the best way to establish comparative offense. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really ran them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.) I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove them to be competitive as long as there’s a perm on the CP.

KRITIKS: I like the k debate and will vote for them but explain the literature. I have read some of the authors including Deleuze and Guattari, Puar, D’andrea, Ahmed, Wilderson, Tuck and Yang, and most of the authors that relate to neoliberal subjectivity as it applies to consumption. I have also seen antiblackness and afropessimism rounds that I have enjoyed a lot. But that does not mean I am entirely up to date on the newest literature or how your lit plays into the round. Just explain it to me. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. Affs should either have a plan text or an advocacy statement as to what they do. I don't like performance debate as much as just reading the cards, however I have voted for poetry performance in rounds. I will listen to identity args. Race, disabilty, and queer lit are all acceptable in front of me and I can/ will evaluate them. Neg should be able to defend alt solvency. I am not going to automatically grant that. I will not kick the alt for you. saying "if you do not buy the alt kick it for me" is not an argument. If you do not explicitly say "kick the alt" or something of that nature I will evaluate the alternative. If it does not solve then I will be persuaded by risk of aff offense. I also want to point out that P.I.L. was correct, Anger is an Energy. If structures upset you, feel free to rage against them. This can include the debate, economic, racial, gendered, and other spaces. If you are oppressed and you are angry about it, I will not limit your ability to angrily refute the system.

K's that I am v familiar with: SetCol, Cap, Afropess, fem, ableism, militarism, Biopower/ Necropower, Islamophobia

k's that I know a bit less: queer theory, Baudrillard

CASE: I am always here for the growth, heg, and democracy bad debates as well as the prolif good ones. My strategy typically was to go T, K, O so I enjoy hearing why heg is bad and how the alt avoids it and how the aff isnt topical.

PRESUMPTION: I will not vote for terminal defense on the flow. I need an offensive reason to vote for you. Whether that be a disad, K, or advantage I need something to evaluate to give me a reason to reject the other team. Find it, win it, and extend it. Also, do the calculus for me of what impacts matter and why they matter. When I do the calculus I look to magnitude, timeframe, and probability. Explain why you fit into those please.

CONDO: I find it disingenuous to read more than one condo advocacy in one round in NFA. You can do it if you win the theory debate but I will be more lenient to theory in a world of multiple conditional advocacies. If you are running multiple advocacies please make it only be CPs. I don't want to see a CP and K in a round because almost always the CP will link to the K and I think that's cheating. That is different for policy and I consider it much more debatable then.

PLANLESS AFFS: I believe the aff should do something. How that happens is up to the aff. I do not reject planless affs on face but they should at least have an advocacy. otherwise, I am persuaded by vote neg on presumption because the aff functionally does nothing. arguments about the importance of rhetorical challenges is a way to do this.

_________

HS-LD

For any arguments that relate to it see above. In terms of how I evaluate LD rounds I rely heavily on the framework debate to determine how I will evaluate the round. Pay it it's due and try to win it. However, if you are able to show how your arguments fall into your opponents’ framework then I will be willing to vote for you if they win the framework shell. Also please clash with each other. I have seen too many rounds where each speech is just explaining 1ACs and 1NCs and I don't have a specific reason to vote against one or the other. At that point my personal morals let me decide how I feel about the topic. You don't want that. I don't want that.

I think a lot of LD debaters fail to recognize the importance of uniqueness to their arguments. If the squo is in the direction of the arg you are talking about, you need to prove uniqueness for whatever point you are making.

I tend to default to the idea that Fiat does not exist in HSLD until I am told otherwise. This is an easy arg to make especially with a res that uses the word "ought".

I am more progressive when it comes to LD due to my policy background. This means PICs, Ks, CPs and DAs are all acceptable. weigh them and explain the args as they apply to the aff case.

Phil cases and I do not get along very well. It confuses me and I find that debaters are not the best at explaining philosophy in the limited amount of time we have in debate rounds.

I prefer single standard debate as well. Death is bad and morality is good (but subjective) I dont need a specific mechanism for how we prevent or entrench one or the other. if you read it thats fine but I probably won't look at it that much unless you thoroughly explain it to me.

how to pref me

policy style args (CP, K, DA)-1

Theory-1

phil-3

tricks-these are typically not arguments and hold minimal weight for me

______________________________

PF

If you have me in the back of the room for NSDA most likely it will be for public forum. That being said, I am not extremely experienced when it comes to public forum debate. I have coached and debated it in an extremely limited capacity but have substantial experience in other formats. The debate is yours but I have a few things that ought to be known before you walk into the room and start doing your thing.

1. Debate is a game of comparative warrants and impacts. Too many people in PF try to rely on just making claims without substantiating those claims with proper warrants. Just giving me a number is insufficient to prove the causality of an argument. I need to understand what the reasoning is behind WHY a number exists.
2. Uniqueness MATTERS! I have seen too many debaters (in all activities) fail to explain the uniqueness of their claims and arguments. The resolution provides an overarching truth claim that provides some direction as to how the world reorients itself post implementation. What does each world look like and how is it a shift to the status quo?
3. Evidence is incredibly important to me. If you choose to paraphrase, it will negatively impact your speaker points. I emphasize the use of actual properly cut cards in PF. I understand this is not a common practice so if I ask for evidence that you have read, you need to be able to provide the source and the lines where your arguments came from. Failure to do this will result in me not evaluating an argument, filing an ethics complaint, and tanking your speaks. Don't plagiarize or lie to me in a debate.
4. Speaker position does not influence me too much. I keep a rigorous flow that consists of all of the arguments made by both teams. You should pref the side you want before picking the order in front of me.
5. PLEASE provide an actual impact in debates. most PF rounds I have judged do not express an actual impact story and get stuck at internal links. you need a reason that your contentions are a problem
6. Finally, for any of it that applies above, please consult my LD and policy sections of my paradigm to see if any arguments should or should not be read at this tournament. Also, ask any questions that you may have before the round. I enjoy talking to people and hope to enjoy the debate you present me with.

__________________

At the end of the day it is my job to sit in the back of the room and listen to discourse on the issues presented. It is your job to determine how that discourse happens. Just because I say I do or do not like something should not change your strategy based on the round. I have voted for things I never thought I would and have changed my opinions about things a lot. I give higher speaks to anyone who can read my paradigm and change my opinion or do something that is incredibly intelligent in round. Do what you are comfortable with and I will adjudicate it based on what is in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me. I only bite on tuesdays. Pref me a 1 and I'll be able to give you an experienced and fairly well rounded and open round.

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.

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

email: gradywiedeman@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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