Here are the basics:

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round. I prefer you wait to do this until both teams are present, so everyone is on the same page.

I competed primarily in LD in Nebraska in the mid 1990s. So I'm probably a bit older than most judges. Since then I have been a volunteer speech and debate coach while in college, and a head coach of a more-or-less rural school in Nebraska. I've coached a variety of events and styles within those events with successful PF, LD, CX, and congress competitors.

Things that probably matter most to you as a debater if you see my name in your round:

I like creative, critical thinking based on relevant, topical literature.

I think debate should be about the resolution at hand. I have picked up teams/competitors who argue outside of the resolution, but those instances are rare and your argumentation, delivery, and rationalization as to why we should have a round about your content or method needs to be near flawless.

I prefer debates that deal substantively with the evidence and arguments that support each debater's position. Consequently, comparatively weighing impacts, evidence, frameworks, etc. is very important. If you don't do that in the round, I'll have to do it on my own and decisions then become a bit more arbitrary. Debaters who identify the primary areas of clash in a round, and tell me why they are winning those areas generally get my ballot. Tell me the story of your advocacy, and sell me on that story.

I used to not be a fan of running plans/counterplan, disads, or other policy style arguments, but the resolution styles and argumentation is becoming more clear here. I'm still not sure how a counterplan functions when there isn't a specific plan in the AC, though. In general, I default toward a tradition value/criterion structure and weigh the round through that lens. I don't think you have to win the framework to win the round; if you have access to the opponent's framework and your arguments impact better there, you win. Finally, I'm not very likely to vote for your argument that says my decision in this round is going to impact the world, the debate community, or other in round impacts. I enjoy a lot of the literature that surrounds K arguments; but framing it with an in-round impact isn't very persuasive to me. If you have a theory argument that your opponent is excluding you from the round for some reason, make sure you articulate that clearly.

In PF, the likelihood of my voting on a plan/counterplan position is pretty small. If you run one and your opponent argues that PF isn't the place for those, you'll probably lose the round at that point. Of course there is plenty of room for creatively constructing arguments on both sides of most resolutions -- so you should do that. Aside from that, I'm not a fan of soundbyte-y type arguments that seem to frequently appear in PF. I would like some clear arguments based on evidence and analyzed comparatively to your opponent's arguments. Show me where there is clash and tell why you win there.

My name is Keegan Donahue and I did Pf for 3 years at Millard North. I also helped coach at Lewis Palmer High School for a short period.

I'm a rather flexible judge but here are a few things I look for in a round:

1. Please for the love of everything good, signpost. Give me a roadmap before your speech.

2. Please be courteous. The topics are sometimes sensitive and it's easy to lose track of why we're here; to learn and have fun.

3. Speed is not an issue as long as it's not used to jam 80 sub points through.

4. Run whatever arguments you like as long as you can back it up with data and tell me why it matters.

5. Please ask any questions before or after.

6. I dont count any new arguments after the 2nd speeches.

I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln for 4 years. I have competed on the National policy circuit during my last two years of highschool on a regular basis. I am currently the assistant coach at Lincoln Southeast high school where I coach Policy, LD, with some PF and Congress. I am most familiar and comfortable with progressive LD and more Traditional Policy; however I will listen to almost anything if it is explained and argued well.

If there is an email chain, add me: dfolkert@nebrwesleyan.edu

LD:

-I prefer contention level debate over standards debate, so any effort to consolidate the standards debate would be much preferred.

-I default to tech over truth

-I encourage creativity with K's, DA's, and CP's to be run within LD, as long as they are run correctly and give me a reason for why that type of position is justified.

Policy:

K aff vs Policy aff: When I was debating, I stuck to traditional policy debate with topical policy aff's over K affs, therefore I prefer to see that type of debate. I prefer to hear a well-warranted and thought out policy aff's over a jargon heavy K aff that provides no justification outside of "the USFG is bad" or the "structure is flawed". I understand and value the importance of an applicable K aff to the topic, but as a general principle I am more persuaded by a policy aff, especially in Nebraska when unfortunately a Policy Aff is rarer then a non-topical K aff.

DA's/ CP: I love to see a great CP and DA combo to an aff over a 1-off K in the 1NC. I feel like a good CP and DA is undervalued in policy debate currently, and would love to see them make a come back. Therefore, from a neg strategy perspective, I will find a team reading an applicable CP over a generic K (such as cap, imperialism, anti-blackness, identity politics, set col, etc.) more persuasive.

K: Again, I am not the biggest fan of 1-off K's in the 1NC, however I do believe K's have a place in a debate when in conjunction with other off-case positions. If you plan on reading a K, either A. read other off case positions such as T or DA's, or B. if you do read a 1-off K, PLEASE do case work. Show me how the K interacts with the aff by indicting the solvency of the aff with the K in the 1NC or turning it, etc. For the K itself, I prefer more pragmatic alts over vague Utopian ults. I am a fan of kicking the Alt and using the K as a linear DA.

T: I love a great T debate, as do most judges! However, key word 'great'. Reading shells in the 1NC and 2AC are fine, but after those speeches I do not want to hear shell extensions, I want to hear real analysis and comparison between your interp and your opponents. I default to competing interps over reasonability.

FW: Against K aff's, I want rather see a good FW debate over a K vs K debate. Again, I would rather see real analysis over shell extensions after the 1NC and 2AC. For me to pull the trigger on FW, I really need a TVA. As I did traditional policy debate over K debating high school, you need to go a little slower on FW and explain arguments more as I am not as familiar with them as I am with more traditional theory and T arguments.

If you have any specific questions about arguments, please ask me before 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.

Gray Graves

Please add me to the email chain: graygraves3@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns.

Debate Experience:

High School

- Millard West (2015-2017) Lincoln Douglas

- Millard North (2017-2019) Policy

College

- UNL (2019-Present) NFA-LD (1 v. 1 policy)

I coach Policy/LD at Marian High School.

Misc.

I am fine with speed, but require clarity and slowing down on analytics and tags. I will say “clear” as many times as necessary, which is a signal to be clear and doesn’t necessarily require you to reduce speed.

I think that Disclosure is good in almost all instances. I will vote on Disclosure theory in most instances, when debated well, because of this.

"Extend (Author, Year)" is not sufficient for an extension. Please explain what you are extending; This does not always require a huge time investment, but the former example is always insufficient. Conceded arguments should be brought up if you want it to factor into the round/decision, but I have a low extension threshold in those instances.

Do not clip cards. It will never be worth it. If a tournament describes a process in the instance of clipping, I will adhere to that process. If not, clipping must be pointed out immediately after the speech. The team alleging that clipping has occurred must stake the round on this concern and provide audio evidence. If I witness clipping myself, I will stop the round. Skipping over a sentence, phrases or single words repeatedly is grounds for clipping. Clipping will result in a L and <26 speaks.

Tag-team CX is fine, but please do not control the entirety of your partner's CX.

No prep will be taken for flashing/emailing. Conversely, please do not steal prep time.

Offense holds more weight than defense. Terminal defense is possible, but there is a high threshold for this.

I generally am "tech over truth." Having said that although, some arguments can overwhelm tech through its validity, and some untrue arguments will never win you the round in front of me, no matter how techy you debate it. So, take my leaning toward "tech over truth" with some skepticism and just debate well.

K

Critical arguments are the majority of what I read during my junior and senior year. It is also my favorite type of argument to research. In High School, I read Queer Theory, Puar, Bataille, Semiocapitalism, Neoliberalism, Settler Colonialism, and various identity politics arguments. Please do not read a K you are unfamiliar with in front of me because of my argument history. I will hold the K to a high standard of explanation and contextualization. The best way to read the K in front of me is to spend adequate time contextualizing and fleshing out the links, explaining the solvency mechanism and examples of the alternative (especially if it’s a vague theoretical alternative), and answering the AFF’s framing.

Be cautious on contradictions between the K and any other off case positions you have. If you notice a contradiction between your opponent’s K and another argument they are making, it is better to point this out and flesh out the theoretical implications/impact, than to read a theory argument, like Condo Bad.

Framework

I enjoy this debate. I have significant experience debating both sides. I have an agnostic stance toward it as a judge; I will vote either way.

For the NEG team, please answer the K team’s turns (DAs). This is often the easiest route to my ballot for the K team, and often bad FW teams do very little work to address this offense. I prefer TVAs with a solvency advocate, but do not necessarily require it. TVAs that just say the USFG does the AFF (at least in the context of the more obscure and theoretical methods) are usually not persuasive.

For the K team, I would like a strategic and offensive counter-interpretation. You are likely to lose the debate if you can’t debate traditional FW offense under your C/I, or do not do sufficient work on proving why the turns/DAs mean I vote for you.

Topicality/Theory

I really love a well-done Topicality debate. I default to competing interpretations.

I am extremely unlikely to vote for RVIs in policy. I don't think that it is as unwarranted in LD.

I am not extremely familiar with CP theory outside of PIC theory, Conditionality theory, and Perm theory.

I am not a fan of LD’s frivolous theory trend and am unlikely to vote on these arguments. “Drop the argument, not the team” and reasonability can be fairly persuasive, especially against these types of theory shells. Good and well-tailored theory is encouraged. Outside of this, I rather judge the substance of the round.

DA/CP

I love a good debate with either one or both off-case position. Please read specific links on the DA.

Case

Please spend some time on case, especially K teams. Although it's said a lot in paradigms, it's very true that HS teams often do not utilize/leverage case arguments enough. I particularly engage the use of case arguments as leverage for other portions of the debate.

ROTB

I default to 'vote for the team that debated the best.' I will not be happy if your plan to win the ballot relies on limiting out offense through an arbitrary ROTB that got conceded. I much rather watch a Framing debate than ROTB debate.

Speaks

Generally, I will determine speaks through this loose model:

29-29.5: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

28-28.5: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27.5: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

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 debated for three years in LD at Norfolk.

If you’re cool with speed then i’m cool with it. I’m okay with just about any argument, if it has a warrant and you are winning the argument I will vote on it. Run what you are comfortable arguing. I’m okay with theory, but if you are running it unnecessarily I’m probably going to be annoyed. don’t be rude or hostile.

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.

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

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

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

Here's what I'll say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I am a mostly traditional-leaning judge. I am willing to hear non-traditional cases but I am not particularly familiar with some of the jargon/strategies and I will default to traditional voting framework when if I am forced to choose between a traditional and a non-traditional burden.

I am a pretty flow judge. Nothing super specific besides that I don't vote on disclosure as I don't know enough about it at this time and I don't feel there has been an explicit shift in the Nebraska LD community to disclosure. I can mostly understand spreading as long as its not like over 500 wpm as long as you are clear. Anything over will be a gamble, it pretty much just comes down whether or not I can understand you so tread carefully.

I understand debate jargon when related to PF or LD. I am not super knowledgeable about some policy stuff but I am getting better the more I see it and I accept kritiques and what not as long as the framework makes sense in the context of LD.

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

If you have any questions for me, you can email me (jwtomsu@gmail.com) or ask me before the round starts.

I am in my second year as a coach for LD debate at Millard South and debated 3 years of LD at Elkhorn South.

In general, I try to have an open mind to most arguments, just keep in mind that I debated on a pretty traditional circuit, and I am not as familiar with some of the more progressive debate styles. I've learned a lot in the past year about some of the more progressive debate, but I'm still not 100% confident in knowing all the ins and outs of certain progressive debate. I will try and keep up with whatever debate I'm judging, but what I'm trying to emphasize is that I may not be able to comprehend a debate round where the debaters are using progressive jargon that I'm not familiar with.

Give me warrants and a framing mechanism to contextualize your impacts and I'll be good.

Speed: I'm probably between a 6 or 7 on speed. Note for online debate: I will follow the tournament rules for whatever I'm supposed to do if there are technical difficulties, but the rule of thumb for me is that I will try to be as accommodating as possible if any problems pop up. Also, I understand it can be an inconvenience, but please slow down for online debate as otherwise I will probably miss parts of the flow.

For LD:Overall, I am a fairly progressive judge, and I am willing to hear anything. I am in THEORY fine with SOME speed, however many of you lack the ability to enunciate properly, so go at your own peril. I do not give warnings for speed, and do not ask for clarifications afterwards if you mutter through something. DO NOT BLOW THROUGH YOUR TAGLINES.

I really like framework. Prove to me why I should prefer your framework OVER your opponent's and you will win more often than not.

I do not weigh solvency unless it is sufficiently proven in round that there is a burden for it.

Kritiks and Theory are both fine by me, especially if the topic would not otherwise allow for a fair playing field for debate. I am tech over truth.

For PF: I look a lot on impact and clash. Also, be sure to explain the link, as all too often the evidence provided only has tangential relation to your contentions, and I err on not weighing it if not properly explained.

For Congress: In the rare event that I am judging Congress, avoid rehash at all costs. I hate hearing the same argument over and over and will give no speaker points if I hear something again. If what you want to say is remotely similar to what someone else has said, then move on to the next bill!