Up to date as of 22-23 season.

About Me

Email: lemonhalffull@gmail.com

Hello! My name is Juno and my pronouns are he/him or they/them

I have debated for going on 4 years with Millard South and I've been a captain for the team for 2 of them.

I am a really expressive person with my face. I may open my mouth or move my eyes to a point you make. Don't take this too personal or let it affect how you debate, it's just how I show I'm paying attention 

Speaks

Speaks: 30 (Tournament winning speaker) 28-29 (Very awesome) 26-27 (Few mistakes, pretty average) 25 (Needs improvement)

Anything less is hate speech and/or derogatory remarks (Misogyny, Homophobia/Transphobia/Racism, Slurs, Blatant misgendering, ETC) and would be reported to tab immediately.

IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD: I prefer if you did not do that actually!! If you insist, please share your case with both me (email above) and your opponent. I'd like to reiterate, I prefer you don't. Its unnecessary.

Case

IMPORTANT: Jesus H Macy please put TW or CW for triggering topics!! Even if you are not affected by a topic it might affect someone else. 

Framework: Framework is how you view the round but ultimately it is up to you if you see it as important. If you have the same framework don't waste time talking about it. Collapsing framework is ok as long as both opponents agree, and you can explain why you fit it better. If there is opposing frameworks do a good job of saying why to prefer or I will essentially have to guess, making the round harder to judge.

Contentions: Go down the flow!! Even if you don't have a ton to say about a certain point, MENTION IT! Best way to obtain the ballot 4 me is to hit every point. Also respond to attacks made against your case. If you attack your opponents case that's great but don't leave your case undefended because a strong argument against you that you do not respond to could make or break the round for you.

Arguments I prefer: Debate is what you want it to be. My school is more traditional so I find those arguments easier to comprehend, but ultimately I do not have an argument style I prefer. If you have a more "policy style" (as some would call it) case, just explain it real good. I can follow any arguments pretty easily if you just know it well enough to elaborate. 

Theory: Doubt this is common with novices but just in case, disclosure theory is stupid!!! I cannot stress this enough I fr do not care about the wiki, I wont vote on it, don't waste your time reading it. Use theory to call out actual abuse such as ableism, speed, etc etc. THAT is theory I'll vote on (if it's valid ofc)

I love when people call out problems with a link chain. I just love it. That's all I can really say. A good cross ex is good (Asking strong questions, sort of using cross ex to set up your arguments, standing your ground)

Do not insult others during rebuttal. This should be self explanatory (ex: do not call someone's argument stupid)

Tips/Other stuff (This does not affect scores)

Talk to each other when its appropriate! (Before round, waiting for RFD, etc) Its a great way to get to know people from other schools and also it makes things a lot less awkward. You can talk to me as well, we are all just normal people inside and out of a debate space and it's great to get to know other debaters/your judges. A silent room before and after a round is never fun.

Pronouns are important! If you're reading this: there is a space to put your pronouns on tab. If you haven't already and are safe (pls don't put yourself in danger) and comfortable to do so, it helps with normalization if you put them there (even if you are cisgender) Always check tab and try your best to use the correct pronouns for your opponents and judges. Mistakes happen, but if you are reminded and still choose to ignore warnings and blatantly misgendering someone, this is grounds to be reported. If you are unsure of someone's pronouns, its always ok to ask (if they choose to answer is up to them) If all else fails and you still do not know, gender neutral pronouns "they" or just saying "My opponent" is a safe bet. Also, if you have a preferred name that is different from what is on tab you can let anyone in the round know if you are comfortable.

If you’re reading this compliment your opponent before the round or while waiting for RFD for +0.5 speaker point.

I would like the debate to be accessible as possible if you need a certain accommodation feel free to let me know

If you have any other questions feel free to email me (see email above) or talk to me before/after round

Overall just use your brain. You all are incredibly smart to be here, don't ruin you intelligence by being a jerk

Good luck to all and have fun!!:)

NEBRASKANS:if you show me undeniable proof before round, that you've read indexicals in two rounds this year at local tournaments, then I'll give you +0.5 speaks than I otherwise would have. Depending on who the judge(s) was/were in that round and the importance of the round, I might give you even more.(One of the rounds cannot have been in front of me).

Dear Novices: I very much love and appreciate you, but will a little more if you 1. have some framework interaction (tell me why I should use your framework and why I shouldn't use your opponent's) and 2. do some impact weighing (explain why your impact(s) is the most important compared to the others in the round). Keep up the good work!! you can ignore the rest of my paradigm.

Online: I wasn't very good at flowing online debate so please speak clearly and use inflection in your voice to emphasize key things you want me to get down.

For the email chain or whatever feel free to shoot me an email: iansdebatemail@gmail.com

My Debate background:

I debated 4 years at Millard North, 2 years of policy, and 2 years of LD. I had success on a mixed bag local circuit(progressive and traditional), winning tournaments and speaker awards. I was okay on the national circuit, breaking at some tournaments. I qualified for Nationals 3 years. I was a flex debater running mostly Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.

Currently on my demon time as an assistant coach at Millard North, coaching LD.

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Larp- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to:

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility affirms, Presumption negates.

No RVIs(it's not hard to convince me otherwise though.)

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

I tend to give pretty high speaks, 28.5= Average Debater. I base speaks on efficiency and the quality of your arguments, I don't care how pretty you speak so long as I can understand you.

Be Nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive (Racism, queerphobic, etc.)

Event Specific:

LD & Policy- I'll evaluate these two the same way.

Larp: Didn't do much of this in either event, just make sure you give me a justified framing mechanism so I can evaluate and weigh impacts, instead of just assuming I care, I.E. if you make Cap good impact turns on a cap k even if you end up winning them, if your opponents ROB is the only framing mechanism your impact turns mean nothing (unless you articulated a way in which they weigh under the ROB).

Phil: I read a good amount of phil, I'm fine with Normative or Descriptive frameworks. I read Kant, Hobbes, Functionalism(or constituivism), Realism(IR), International Law, Contractarianism, and maybe some others that I can't remember.

T/Theory: You can see some of my general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are my lens in which I use to evaluate the theory debate and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you do weighing between your arguments don't just repeat your arguments verbatim in the rebuttals and expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (In front of me yes policy kids you can debate paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI.)

Kritiks: I mess with Kritiks, one thing I'll generally note on them is that their ROBs are typically impact justified, either don't have a impact justified framing mechanism or explain why being impact justified is good or doesn't matter (if this is an issue brought up). I'm most familiar with Modernist Cap ks. I'm familiar with D(& G), Puar, Buadrillard, Foucault, Agamben, Afropessimism, Queer pessimism, maybe some others you can always ask. Please still explain your arguments, I will try my best not to commit the sin of judge intervention by doing work for anyone.

Tricks: I ran tricks a little bit, they're fun please just make sure they're clearly delineated and are actually warranted and implicated in the first speech that they're made in. Also try to read them slower.

PF- Never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism in which I can evaluate the round and weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand.

Congress- I did congress once, if I end up judging, you should probably try to appeal to the other judges more, I don't care how you speak, I like clash and I like the content of what you're saying.

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.

When judging LD I look for...

- Arguments well formulated (supported/evidenced) in the first speech and carried through to the final rebuttals (read your flow, avoid dropping contentions!)

- Road maps!

- I value respect of everyone in round; checking with the room before speeches, shaking hands at the end (if your opponent is cool with it and get some hand sany), giving content warnings.

- Clear speech! I will not take off speaker points for speed as long as it is comprehensible, (make sure you know what you're saying basically) also I will say "speed" in round in case it becomes unclear.

*extra speaks for mentioning Cake Boss before, during or after round.