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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Kirk - Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

General philosophy – Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speech drop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate – You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. The easiest way to resolve this is through speech drop. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality – Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis-à-vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks – Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans – Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads – Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate – no more, no less.

Disclosure (12/2/23 update) - I lifted this from Parker Hopkins at his blessing who borrowed from Chris Roberds.

TLDR - disclosure is an essential element to small-school competitiveness, the educational functions of the activity, and should be practiced by all teams.

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

(Justin's final thought on disclosure) - JV and Novice divisions need disclosure the most. There is a reason that CARD and ADA Novice divisions use a packet. There is a reason that the Nothern Tier used a packet when it was still a thing. Disclosure on the wiki serves a similar if not a congruent function for the community. Give those coaches some time to prepare their young debaters to engage their opponents and have a productive debate!

Contact info: jmsle20@gmail.com

TL;DR just explain things well to me. Make sure things are explained clearly and cross-applied to the opponents arguments and I'll do my best to understand. After judging some national circuit debate rounds as well, I’ve realized I cannot keep up with the speed of the higher level national circuit so please aware of that and slow down. I may or may not tell you to slow down.

Speed: I think i'm ok with speed, thought after dowling i've realized not as good as i used to think. Overall somewhere around 7/10 on speed. that being said, if ur going to read a theory shell or something thats really blippy with lots of short claims,example FW, you're gonna need to slow down. If you go like many many really short blippy off, please go slow. Most other things im able to keep up well enough.

I used to be a CX debater for Millard North. I debated for 3 years as a identity/performance debater from 2013-2017 with one gap year. I coach on and off for the Millard North debate team as well.

Critical Arguments: I do have a bias towards critical arguments. While I do my best to not let this cloud my judgement it does happen. While I don't have a good understanding of many arguments here I do my best to have some kind of basis for most arguments. I do struggle more with postmodern literature so in terms of those just make sure everything is clear and explained well and avoid jargon if possible. It also helps if the argument has a material basis in the alternative. While theoretical alternatives are fine, if they don't have some kind of real world example then it's harder for me to vote for. tldr for critical stuff - i have an ok baseline about the mainstream args, just make sure u explain methods/alts/links etc etc well.

Critical Affs: I like critical affs, I ran one myself in HS. That being said, make sure you're doing the work against FW teams and other K teams to explain what offense exists and why I should vote aff and not just vote neg on SSD.

Plan text Affs: I did performance and identity args in HS so I am less familiar with nuances that come from classic plan text affs vs. x offcases as well as more technical arguments. Just make sure to explain arguments and analysis and I should be fine.

T/FW: I struggle to understand them unless there is clear abuse coming from the aff. I am starting to understand them better, however T and FW debates tend to be more blippy than not so just be sure to explain offense clearly. In terms of speed on the theory debates, be careful just spreading through ur entire theory shells and stuff in front of me cause i will probably miss a lot of the one liners that you end up spreading through especially if you end up not flashing the analytics

Short Version;

Run what you want to run. If you're from PF, I judge rounds with a lens of logic and risk evaluation. My paradigm applies to you more if you're from LD or Policy.

I'm okay with traditional and K debate. The ballot deciding journey is based on the argument map of the round -- which argument won here, canceled out there -- and which team has the better position after everything is added up.

*************

Long Version;

**If you choose the strategy of an 8-off blitzkrieg: Most likely expect a word at the end of the round about how that is neither fun nor valuable**

I debated for 3 years at Millard West Highschool. I ran renewable energy affirmatives and my last year I ran a courts affirmative dealing with Terry vs Ohio, that had a K aff counterpart. I love science affirmatives and anything exciting.

I try to be a clean slate, whose only purpose is to understand the arguments made, compute how they interact, and evaluate the big picture of the round. Judge intervention is not ideal, but when it does happen it's because there are gaps in the flow that I have no choice but to fill in order to reach a decision.

I prefer substance over tech -- let that apply to 8 off debates, ultra speed reading, and theory. I will occasionally, on rare occasions, take the liberty to ignore an inconsequential tech if it upholds the integrity of debate substance. If you're serious about condo, it gets a new piece of paper.

Kritiks-- You have to sell your solvency in order to win. If you're claiming to solve for real world harms, you have to anchor your kritik and our debate round in the real world and tell me explicitly why your aff/k is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot.

Framework-- Too many framework debates never make it much further than the shell. Again, same as kritiks, you need to anchor the framework to the real world and talk about the round and why the framework is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot. The aff probably claims to do something in the real world, you need to do something in the real world that outweighs what they do.

T-- I default to reasonability, within reason. The purpose of topicality should ideally stick to making sure the aff is topical. Topicality's best foot forward is impacted out impacts.

DA, CP-- Fairly straight forward. Sell a story, paint a picture.

Case-- I tend to like when debaters give overviews of their case and consistently sell it throughout the round.

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

Round Framing:

"My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. To not do this will subtract -.5 pts from both teammate's scores.
• Both teams can agree to do a 'Challenge Round' where I will not backfill using the documents to fill in holes in your speech and depend entirely on your clarity of communication to flow. Both teams will receive a +1 pts to their scores for doing this.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will hit you with a -.2. It should be obvious when you need it, but too many debates get away with reading ~3 words that matter and
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped post-Covid. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: bad organization, giving up large amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make The Point of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the flow and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have sent the email.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line.
• Send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

• De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
• Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list obviously, but these are areas that I think most of the debaters can specifically improve on when I judge.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and also debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, a functional limit of parts of the NFA-LD circuit, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find evaluator/policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects which impacts, which would be good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read important evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, but I will read the article as a whole and not just read your highlighting of it. I will not use the unhighlighted portions for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them. When specifying that I should read a card of the opponent's, you explain what I'm specifically looking for if you want me to understand the request.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. I will reward unique & comprehensible standards/criteria with +.5 pts. (Non-unique: Ground, Limits, etc.)

I default to competing interpretations, but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (literally >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Reading cards straight down on the DA without including them in your explanation is gross.

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, but I won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Affirmatives get the same treatment when the 2AR goes for the 1-sentence 2AC arg, or the 2AR goes hard on the :10s condo bad.

Emphasize key arguments, and do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author's claims.

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Definition (Interpretation of Topicality), Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but more robust.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

I've rewritten my paradigm now that I've graduated and I've shifted to primarily judging NFA LD. I am also a little bit of a hoarder so if you want to see my old paradigm, it's at the bottom of this one. I still believe most/all of those things about debate, I am just endeavoring to make it more concise and NFA specific going forward.

A Little about me:

I debated at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for 4 years (2019-2023). I won the NFA-LD grand prix and nationals my last year (imo largely because of judge/opponent adaptation) but that does not necessarily qualify me as a good/bad judge. I competed at 3 policy tournaments with UNL.

I also coached high school LD for three years at Lincoln North Star High School in Nebraska (2020-2023).

Before that I was a policy debater at Shawnee Mission West in Kansas (2016-2019).

My topic knowledge is probably a 4/10. I am now in law school which means I don't cut cards right now because I don't have time, but I am planning to judge NFA pretty regularly for UNL.

My senior year I primarily read affs that were either squarely topical with large impacts or affirmatives with non-USFG advocacy statements instead of plan texts. On the negative I went for T (60%) or the K (30%) in 90% of my rounds. This doesn't mean you have to debate that way, that's just where I am coming from.

I like speechdrop, but I don't care enough to make you use it. If we do an email chain use wallenburg.debate@gmail.com.

TLDR:

I flow, which comes before almost all my other preferences. I like fast (but accessible) debate. I think the time limits in NFA are broken which changes how I would like to evaluate certain arguments. I will vote for nearly anything that has warrants. If you read a plan text, it should be topical, if you don't read a plan text, I think your aff should be at least tangentially related to the topic. I like when negative debaters lay their cards on the table in the NC to prioritize explanation over shock value in the NR.

General Things:

Speed: Sure. Go probably 90% of full speed and slow down on analytics. I flow on paper because I don't type very fast. Clear and slow is better than fast and non-understandable. If your opponent asks you to slow down for accessibility reasons you should. If you ask for someone to slow down for accessibility reasons and then in another debate go really fast, I will not be very forgiving. Those who do this create a poor perception of all requests for slowing down which harms people who actually need to have conversational debates.

Style: Frame my ballot. Tell me which arguments matter the most, why they matter, and why you are winning them. Fewer arguments that are well explained are almost always better than trying to make as many bad arguments as possible. Don't be afraid to "kick" me if you're in front of a more traditional panel. I will still flow and vote off that flow, so if you can win both the technical and ethos debate it will be better for you.

NFA Specific Opinions: 2ARs need to do pick their two or three best arguments and then do line by line on the negative's answers to those arguments from the 1AR. NCs should be less afraid of reading only 1 or 2 off. NRs (generally) shouldn't read cards except to answer cards that the aff read in the 1AR. I think generally more than 1 Conditional advocacy breaks the game, but you should probably get to read that one advocacy conditionally. When the Negative goes for multiple off case arguments that aren't part of the same route to the ballot (i.e. DA + K or T instead of CP + DA), I think the aff gets a ton of leeway in answering them all. The 6-3 time tradeoff just necessitates it and neg debaters will find their time is better spent in the NR really explaining 1 route to the ballot instead of shadow extending it all. I am frustrated with NFA judges that have really ideological oppositions to certain arguments and styles, I think it is just as much my (our) job to adapt to you as it is your job to adapt to me (us) and as such I will endeavor to listen to all of your (non-bigoted) arguments with an open mind.

Disclosure Theory: I am at a crossroads with how I evaluate disclosure right now. We can talk about this more, and I'm open to opinions or suggestions. Generally, I think everybody should be disclosing arguments they have read before on the Wiki. I also tend to evaluate theory arguments very technically. In the spirit of transparency, however, here are a couple thoughts I'm still working through in these debates (and I think they deviate pretty substantially from what people assume about me, hence the relative length):

(1) I am more likely to vote for disclosure theory against someone who knows better. In practice, this means I give more credence to potential abuse arguments against debaters who have been doing this for awhile and/or respond to disclosure with a really big "disclosure bad" shell. On the flip side, I have found myself defaulting to proven abuse/functional application when disclosure is run against new debaters or those that are losing the "tech" simply because they have never had a deep theory debate before.

(2) Often, people think "Nick will vote on disclosure theory" and so they jettison what would otherwise be a clean cut win on a different position. This makes me sad. 100% I would rather vote on the DA/Aff/K/etc. and tell your opponent after the debate "also you should really disclose or answer theory better." It allows me to give better feedback and will likely help you in speaker points, which I think are both good things for you.

(3) I find it hard to establish a discernible difference between "full text on the wiki" "Tags on the wiki" and telling someone what the aff is 15 minutes before the round (a) when asked and (b) with the willingness to send them a copy if they want it. If you don't ask for disclosure so that you can read disclosure, I think you should evaluate whether you actually wanted a fair debate in the first place.

(4) The more you are reading blocks for disclosure theory in the NR/1AR, the less likely I will be to vote for you. I don't want to weigh a novice's reading of their Top 10 teammate's blocks if I can say with substantive certainty that they would not be able to explain the arguments absent those blocks. I know this is the practice with all arguments, but it just makes me feel especially weird with disclosure theory and Idk why (probably an offshoot of my opinion in point (1)).

Arguments:

Affs: Should have an advocacy and an impact. I think if you're going to claim to be Topical you should be topical. If you aren't trying to be topical I prefer you just impact turn T instead of going for defense (I never much cared for "the people are the USFG" arguments). Don't read cards you don't need in the 1AR, you don't have time.

Disadvantages: Sure, I think you should read your best link card in the NC. I (generally) don't think you get add on scenarios in the NR. Specific links are always better than non-specific links.

Counterplans: Yes. Explain how they solve the aff, how they avoid the net benefits, and why they are theoretically legitimate. Do what you can justify, but I tend to fall pretty in line with (policy) established convention as to whether a certain type of CP is cheating or not. I will say I do like PICs and I think that judges that auto reject PICs are actively inhibiting creative negative debaters and rewarding affirmatives for lazy plan writing.

Kritiks: I lived here for the longest in College. Stylistically I think the NC should read less cards and spend more time articulating the links on the case. Why wait until the NR to make link arguments when you can have two shots at explaining it to me to understand it? Framework arguments should be in the NC/1AR. I don't think the NR needs to go for the alt, but it does need to explain why it doesn't need the alt. I think affirmative debaters get too generic answering kritiks, and should make more specific analytical arguments instead of just asserting "perm double bind." 2ARs should collapse more on these - if you're winning the no link debate, go for the perm. If you're winning the impact turn debate, who cares about the perm?

Topicality: (Against the aff with a USFG plan text) I love a good T debate. I think that topicality informs how we write plans in the future which means competing interpretations and potential abuse are (generally) truer arguments. Define words in the resolution, put any TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact framing issues in the NC shell. The NR should go between overviewing/explaining disadvantages to the affirmatives interpretation and line by lining the 1AR responses. Here, again, the aff should pick their battle in the 2AR.

(Against the aff with a non-USFG advocacy) I think this is a viable strategy. You should do more establishment of impacts in the NC then you might against a topical aff. Think of this as more a disad to their method than a prior question, which means you should be making arguments on the case about why topicality harms the aff's ability to solve itself in the NC. You will be hard pressed to win this debate if you do not put some amount of argumentation on the aff. You can win fairness alone but I think it's better explained as an impact to clash/education. Affirmatives should read 2-3 good 1AR impact turns based in AC evidence and explain them in the 1AR instead of 10 blippy, generic arguments. The 2AR should pick the best one and explain it against every macro impact the NR extends.

**********OLD PARADIGM***********

Last Edited in April of 2023.

TLDR:

Do whatever you want. I typically default to offense/defense paradigm and I think judge adaptation should be a two-way street: yes you should probably do what your judges prefer because its strategic, but judges should also make every effort to understand and evaluate your arguments fairly. I am very frustrated by judges that give RFDs like "I don't evaluate this kind of argument" or "You were going too fast so I didn't even try to flow you." I prefer affs are at least based in literature about the resolution. I started with more exposure to Policy style arguments but have since become somewhat of a "K hack." I love impact turns, T debates, tricky DA's, and well thought out Critical debates, not necessarily in that order.

Style Preferences:

Speed - Yes I can handle speed, but please don't go full out. I can flow pretty well, but going too fast will likely hurt you more than it will help you. I would say the 1AC/1NC should be like 90% of top speed, and warrants/rebuttals should be 75%, I'm not a very fast typist so I will likely flow on paper.

Frame my Ballot - Please. The 2NR/2AR should almost always start out with an overview of "You vote Aff/Neg Because..." if you fall into the nasty habit of just going straight into line by line without telling me where to look first in the debate, but your opponent gives a clear, concise overview of how I should evaluate the round and which arguments matter the most, you may not like my decision.

Round Vision - Keep an eye out for technical mistakes and cross flow applications. My partner and I came back from a lot of debates that we were very clearly losing by correctly analyzing bad 2NR kick outs or 1AR mistakes. Making strategic concessions and cross applications will be rewarded.

Adapt - If you're debating in front of a panel don't be afraid to kick me and cater to the other judges interests. I get it, no hard feelings. I will still make my decision based on a technical analysis of the flow unless explicitly instructed otherwise.

Argumentative Things:

Affs - I would prefer that Affirmatives are in the direction of the resolution, and have a stable advocacy, otherwise I will likely find a parametrics argument pretty persuasive. I have read planless affirmatives and I think they have lots of merit, but where teams go wrong is shadow extending aff cards but not explaining their method or solvency mechanism. What does the advocacy do? How do you resolve violence? Do you need to resolve violence? I think these are questions that need to be answered early in the debate. That being said, I think impact turns to FW should use the aff. I am not a big fan of copy and pasting your generic K aff blocks to every aff you read when your evidence justifies much more nuanced answers to framework. As for Affs with Plan Texts, I'm down for whatever. My senior year Alex and I mostly read soft left affs with a framing page, but we also occasionally went for a big stick economy aff with a lot of preempts to Cap and Dedev, so read what you want and I should be able to handle it.

Impact Turns - Yes. Please. Dedev and prolif good were my favorite. Focus your attention on the Sustainability debate, impact analysis, and Impact defense. Read any impact turn you want. Although hearing something like death good or wipeout will probably make me sad.

Topicality - I love a good T debate, but the key word there is good. I default to competing interpretations and I don't think you need to win in round abuse to win T. I typically view T as a Disadvantage to the Affirmative through an offense/defense paradigm and I think fairness is just an internal link to education. 2NC/1NR should have a case list and hopefully have a TVA. The biggest problems teams have when going for Topicality in front of me is warranting out their DAs. Why does the aff explode limits? What do they justify? Why is the ground they take core neg ground and why is that bad? Answering the why question will make topicality debates more persuasive for me. When answering T make sure you have offense or a very clear we meet. ***Pet Peeve: Reasonability is an interpretation level argument, not a violation level argument. "We are reasonably topical" makes absolutely no sense. You are either topical or you aren't, and whoever wins the interpretations debate decides that.

Disadvantages - Yes. There was always a Politics DA in my 1NC's in high school and I love them. The best 2NC's/1NR on DA's will have an overview of some form on top. Brink DAs are much more persuasive than linear DAs. Be sure to make turns case arguments and really flesh out your links in the block. Conversely, dropped turns case arguments in the 1AR typically make a neg presumption ballot significantly easier. Read whatever DA's you like and I can jive.

Counterplans - Also yes. The Bread to the Disad's butter. I think that judge kick is implied in condo and if you want to make a more in depth argument about why I shouldn't judge kick the cp for the neg then that debate should start in the 2AC. Conversely, if the aff wins no judge kick I am sympathetic to arguments about presumption flowing aff if a counterplan is in the 2NR. When reading counterplans sufficiency framing is your friend. Make your net benefits clear and your solvency warrants clearer. Carded counterplans are always better than non-carded counterplans, but pointing out that the aff evidence advocates for your generic CP is also pretty cool. I am always telling teams to do more framing in these rounds. What does the counterplan solve and why does it matter? I will draw the lines, but I will be hesitant.

I would say my opinions about counterplan legitimacy are pretty mainstream. If it's typically thought of as a "cheating" counterplan, I probably think its cheating too. That doesn't mean don't read it, just spend enough time to actually win the theory debate. Nuanced interpretations and fewer, better arguments are preferable to your 9 point "yes delay CPs" blocks.

Kritiks (When You are Neg) - Yes. I will listen to K's but I am probably not very familiar with your literature. I am probably a little bit more sympathetic to framework arguments about ontology/epistemology/pedagogy/etc. than some other judges, and I think the most effective way to win the framework debate is to get impacts external to fairness alongside all of your typical clash impact turns. I don't think you need to go for the alt if you can win framework and impact calc. If you do go for the alt, I think the most persuasive debaters describe it more as a process and less as a singular event. The link debate is the most important part, and an analytical extrapolation of generic links and how they interact with the case in the 2NC is more persuasive than reading 10 new cards that don't say much about the aff. My senior year when I went for the K, I mostly went for a Zizek Cap K with a really buff 2NC Framework (I look back and feel silly saying that). I also read Agamben and Security. In college I have focused my research on Ecological Pessimism (A Climate oriented spin off of OOO), Managerialism, Necropolitics as it is theorized by Achille Mbembe, Militarism, China Threat Construction (Pan), and critical pedagogy. The teams I coach read a lot of Warren/Wilderson, Puar, Munoz, and Edelman so I'm being exposed to that lit too. Everything outside of those I probably have a working knowledge of, but you will probably have to do more explaining to me than you might have to with another judge. If I don't understand the core thesis by the end of the round, it will be very hard to win my ballot.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. The more you can attack the internal links of the aff, the more likely you can pick up my ballot. I will vote on presumption if a significant amount of case answers are mishandled or good DA turns the Aff arguments are won. If you are debating against a plan-less aff do what you do - I could listen to a methods debate or a FW debate - I think often teams that read plan-less affs are really only ready for the latter, so you might consider using that to your advantage.

Theory - SLOW DOWN ON YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. The key to a good theory debate is a nuanced interpretation. The more tailored you can make your interpretation to the debate that is happening to subsume the other team's offense, the better off you will be. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the Argument and not the team, but I think the best aff theory is used to justify abusive permutations like Perm do the counterplan. Condo is a different beast, and a reason to reject the team if won. I would prefer the 2AR not devolve to condo, but I also understand that sometimes you get spread out or there are egregious performative contradictions that warrant a complete throw to theory. In these situations outline the in-round abuse and make your impacts clear - ensure that you can explain why your interp is not regressive.

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

Because I live in Nebraska I guess I have to include this stuff too...

Top Level: SHARE CASES. I don't understand this permissibility with not seeing your opponents evidence, not for flowing purposes but for checking reliability of the evidence, but it seems more prevalent in HS LD than other places. Pet peeve is debaters who don't share the AC/NC until after they give it or ask which evidence to send instead of just sending the whole doc :)

I have now been coaching/judging LD for the better part of 3 years and more often than not I find myself evaluating these rounds very similarly to how I would evaluate a policy round. With that being said, see above for my policy preferences if you want to have a progressive round, with a few caveats below. If you find yourself more of a traditional or phil debater, that's cool too, read on...

TRAD: This is the LD type I did when I went to high school in Kansas City. If you want me to just evaluate value v value with degrees of solvency, tell me why that's the best method for debate. I prefer arguments steeped in argument quality and structural fairness as opposed to arguments that appeal to "the spirit of LD" or "Morality is useful for everyday life." I find the first to be arbitrary and the second to be just silly. If you are debating against a Traditional case with a progressive case, focus on similar aspects of the framing debate. Tell me why it is pedagogically/competitively valuable to abandon pure value v value debate. I think there is a litany of reasons on both sides of this question and it is up to you to parse out.

PHIL: These are the concepts that are most foreign to me. I enjoy philosophy in my everyday life, but I don't often read a whole lot of books/papers through the philosophical lens of Kant or Locke or what have you. With that being said, I can often understand phil arguments, they just need more explaining in front of me. Explain how your philosophy better explains the world and moral action, and why it specifically takes out the competing method. Don't just say "act omission distinction," tell me what that is and why it's good/bad. Phil cases that I've coached and have begun to understand, but am by no means well versed in are Kant, MacIntyre, and Locke.

PROGRESSIVE: If you're actually reading paradigms this is likely why you're here. I try to be tabula rasa (don't we all?) but I do have preconceived biases that are not hard to overcome with well-developed argumentation. I tend to think that the round should be some flavor of hypo testing where the aff defends the whole rez and the neg defends the status quo or a counter advocacy that is not related to the resolution to resolve aff offense. If the aff reads a plan text, that's fine, justify it and parse it out. I think that gives the negative more leeway for Counterplan or PIC offense, as well as Topicality or Theory. On condo, I think that anything more than 1 or 2 condo in LD is abusive but can be persuaded to think less or more is permissible. I consider myself to be a connoisseur of theory debates, but I hate having 3 or 4 theory arguments flying around from the get-go. I would much rather you focus on one theory argument and really developed and debate it, instead of relying on your opponent dropping standard 3 subsection C.

A CAVEAT ON T WHOLE REZ: If you think this is your best option for the NR go for it, but I want to be very clear on how I often find myself adjudicating these arguments: 1. Grammar over pragmatics is silly to me, I likely won't be as persuaded by a grammar argument about what kind of plural the word "states" is but I would be much more persuaded by a Limits DA. 2. I don't think an interp card is necessary for this argument. I think it's just as viable as a theory argument like solvency advocate theory or Condo - affirmative teams that rely on "You don't have a card for that" will receive much less sympathy from me than teams that make their own counter interp and have the standards debate.

For the most part, everything above about policy debate applies, if you have any specific questions please ask me before the round and I will be happy to answer them. GLHF!

Email-chain: benwheeler194@gmail.com

Background: I was a policy debater for three years at Millard West High School, from the years 2016-2019, and I have been judging debate from 2019-Present. I have experience judging policy, congressional, and Lincoln-Douglass debate. I have obtained my degree in Microbiology with minors in Physics and Mathematics from the University of Nebraska--Lincoln. I have experience in both traditional and K debate, but I have no overall preference (I will listen to any argument and weigh them against each other). I have debated as both a 2N and a 2A.

TL;DR: Run whichever argument you are most comfortable with--just make your arguments smart. I try not to put my own personal biases in the debate round, so just run the arguments you are more comfortable with (I am more likely to vote on a smart argument which you are comfortable with than I am for a certain type of argument). Make sure the way you frame your arguments makes sense, and that you answer the opponents arguments. My favorite things to see in-round are clash and framing debates.

Policy

AFF: I am a big fan of continuity throughout the AFF (i.e. extend your arguments throughout the round, and make sure your arguments all make sense with each other). This can be done as either a simple case overview, or can be more complex, given the context of the round. Vote NEG on presumption (unless you give me a REALLY good NEG debate). I am not a huge fan of not using the AFF throughout the debate. If the AFF team, specifically Policy AFFs, do not at least extend their plan-text throughout the round, I have a hard time voting for them.

NEG: Anything you want to run, run it. Typically a bigger fan of Policy arguments on the NEG (T, FW, CP, or DA's), but I think all NEG arguments warrant some merit.

Specific Arguments:

Policy v K AFFs: I think that both Policy and K AFF have merit within the debate round. If you run a Policy AFF, make sure you put forth the plan-text in every speech, and give me a reason why your plan-text matters, not just within the round, but also outside of it. For K AFF's, I would prefer to see some sort of advocacy, but if you don't use one, make sure you tell me why that matters. If you don't, i'll just assume you don't have any sort of plan, and therefore, no out-of-round solvency. For both types of AFF's, I like to see solvency and framing above impacts. Even if the impacts seem smaller than those of the NEG, if you can solve it better than that of the NEG, you win the round.

Kritiks: On the K flow, I think links and solvency are the biggest issues you need to solve for. Not only do you need to prove you solve, you need to prove how you solve better than the AFF. But you also need to link to the AFF for that to work. Outside of these, I like to see both a good impact debate, as well as a good theory debate on the K flow (perm theory or otherwise). Alternatives should also be thoroughly explained as to how they solve, or if you don't have an alternative, tell me why.

Theory: I think theory arguments can be very interesting, if you can spin them right. I think most theory is very under-utilized within the debate space, especially within the Nebraska circuit. Vague Alts and Multiple Worlds are good arguments, if you can explain to me how they work, and why not voting on them is a bad thing. Other than those, conditionality theory and framing debates are always fun debates to watch. If you are going to run theory, just make sure you explain yourself well so I can follow along.

Topicality: Interpretation debate is an important factor of this, as well as having counter-interpretations. Make sure you explain why your interpretation is important to this round specifically, and how it operates better than the counter-interpretation. Make sure that these also have standards and voters, or I won't vote on them. If you run either Effects-T or Extra-T, just make sure you know how they operate against the AFF.

FW: Big fan of FW, but same things as said in the Topicality section. Make sure you have a good interpretation, standards, and voters, or I will not consider it against the AFF. I am a big fan of education arguments, with both FW and T. You also have to gear your arguments specifically against the AFF (generic FW shells are usually un-interesting, and lead to a lack of clash on the FW flow). If you actually engage the AFF specifically within the FW flow, I will consider the arguments more than if you don't.

CP's: Extend your plan-text within every round, and if you can have your own internal net-benefits within the CP, I am more likely to consider it than without it. Internal net benefits are not necessary by means, but it is difficult to evaluate a CP against the case if there are no net benefits (either internal or from a DA). Big fan of perm debate on the CP flow as well, especially if it's outside of perm do both.

DA's: If you are going to run a DA as a net benefit to a CP, make sure you actually link to your CP, and that there is an internal link between the DA and its impacts. Otherwise, your DA will be wishy-washy at best. If you are running a DA on its own, the impact debate is going to be the most important thing I look to. Sometimes these DA's work better as straight case turns, and sometimes they work really well as standalone off-case--depends on how the round is playing out. If you run a DA as a net benefit to a K, I will cry actual tears of joy.

Counter-Methods: Essentially a CP against a K AFF, I think these are hella under-utilized and could lead to really good debates. Just prove to me how your method is better than that of the K AFF, and how its solvency mechanism actually operates.

In-Round Procedure:

Speed: Read as fast or as slow as you are comfortable with. As long as I can still understand what you're saying, go for it.

Prep: Don't steal prep--if you do, just make sure I don't notice. I won't count flashing or emailing against your prep time. Just don't steal prep, and we'll be cool.

Fun: Have fun.

Congressional Debate

TL;DR: When judging a congress round, the most important things I look for are sources, clash, and decorum within the round.

Sources:When making an argument within a congress round, I would like to see some evidence to back up the arguments you are making. This is not necessarily important if you are refuting an opponent or referring to evidence provided by other debaters in the round--this is specific to the arguments you make. Sure, some arguments are good as analyticals, but if you are making any claims involving statistics or empirical evidence or whatnot, I would like to either see some evidence to back up these claims, or some REALLY convincing analytical arguments.

Clash:One of my biggest gripes with congress rounds are a lack of clash/interaction with other speeches in the round. I can grant that this is impossible for the first speaker, but if you are the second speaker or later and you do NOT referring to opponents speeches/arguments, you are missing some opportunities to make your case sound stronger. Having good clash within the round can make the claims you are already making seem much stronger, and fully utilizing all the evidence within the round may help you make arguments that you otherwise might not have considered. A "plan in a vacuum" with good evidence and warrants to back it up seems less convincing to me than an argument that fully incorporates arguments made throughout the round, but has slightly worse evidence. While clash is not an expressly "necessary" part of the congressional experience, clash, in my opinion, makes the round more fun for me and in turn, means I am more likely to vote you up.

Decorum: This mostly has to do with speaking points, but clear and concise diction throughout your speeches is appreciated. When watching someone speak and giving them speaker points, I look to the debater that is the most confident in the round and can put together arguments/refutations in the best order. Good speaking means good diction, clear speaking, and convincing arguments.

Miscellaneous: If you are chosen as a PO for the round, don't think of that as a bad thing! POs have a tough job within the round and my scores for you will reflect that. As long as you are keeping every on track and keeping good time of the round, I will generally score you well.

Other than what I said above, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

Lincoln-Douglass Debate

Given the current board state of LD debate, my judging is typically very similar to that of policy. If you are reading anything resembling a policy speech (such as a K), refer to what I have said above.

Value Criterion: If you are still running a value criterion in 2023, then kudos to you! I love seeing value criterion within the round, irregardless of if there is a plan/advocacy to back them up. Just make sure that your value criterion is not vague, and make sure the value criterion actually does the thing you want it to do. It doesn't matter how good a value criterion is if you can't debate it effectively.

Logic: When watching a LD debate, I want the arguments you are making to be made in a logical order and in a way that I can easily interpret. High theory Ks and other likewise arguments are fine, but just make sure that you can explain it to me or I will NOT vote you up on it. Being too technical isn't my favorite either, but a good mixture between the two can help you to make fun arguments while still being logically sound.

Public Forum

I have never judged PF, but it seemed rude to not include in my paradigm (since I already have the other three styles listed). Basically for PF, make your arguments clear and easy to follow, and I will judge from there. I do apologize if I judge it like a policy judge though.

Big Questions
Based