Sunny (He/Him/His)

Millard North ‘24

email chain pls (but I do my best to not flow off of it): easybodduluri@gmail.com

Tech >>>>> Truth. Truth probably makes tech easier i.e. Spark or Wipeout has a higher threshold for me to vote on than Dedev or First Strike.

Novices Look Here

I applaud you for starting your debate career. Don't be discouraged by my decision, you live and you learn. Please don't read anything you don't understand, you will look bad. If you have any questions, I will answer them with passion. Aggressive cross-ex will be rewarded, but don't get too mean. Be sure to give me a quick summary of your arguments at the beginning of the speech, but I won't stake the round of it. Finally, try to paint why you get the ballot, simple judge instruction goes a long way in terms of messy debates.

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot.

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-Ill prolly flow off the doc

Prefs:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy style, T, etc). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my styles:

Policy – 1

Topicality – 2

Phil(Kant), Theory(CP Theory), K – 3

Phil and Theory(Anything Else)- 4

Tricks – strike

SPEAKS:

Based on the strategy, clash, and sounding comprehensible. Ill try to make these as less arbitrary as possible so I guess Ill provide a list:

<27.5 - good god you gotta stop and reconsider what went wrong in your life (you were terribly offensive)

27.5 - 28 - you are new to this activity and are still learning the basics

28 - 28.5 - this was an ok debate where debaters prolly spoke past each other and/or some other key issues

28.6 - 29 - the debate was fairly fun to watch but there is still a decent amount to improve on i.e. efficiency, strategy, etc

29.1< - this round was great and there were only minor issues with amazing clash while keeping it organized - not going for too much

Ks:

Aff should probably get to weigh case but a good K debater should be able to win - "good K debating is good case debating" - Jared Burke

I abs love Set Col vs Kant and this debate will be the only debate I love with Phil vs K

This was kind of a phase for me but weird enough Ks are pretty strategic when done right. During my junior year, all I went for was psychoanalysis but only for the purpose of beating K affs. I’m familiar with the K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc. The K lit I'm better for would-be Generic Policy Ks. High theory requires more explanation. If you cant explain the K in CX, imma be kinda sad when the 2n is doc botted.

Topicality:

Topicality debates are cool. Neg prolly wins cuz their definitions are more precise and/or their standards o/w. Aff wins by winning collapsing the debate down to reasonablity(and win a bunch of defense) and/or win their interp is precise enough + win their model is is best for debateability.

Assuming literally no argument is made excluding RVIs, either way, I default:

- No RVI(always)

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater

- Norms setting

Theory

I will only be "happy" to vote on CP theory if the it was dropped/less than 30 seconds were spent on it. Other than that, I will have tons of bias against 1AR restarts, 1NC theory that isnt Disclosure(not against novices), New Affs(probably not needed),or Topicality/Framewrk. I think against these shells reasonability and DTA are very persuasive.

Phil:

I don't understand much outside of Util/some Kant.

Tricks:

Arguments should prolly have a claim warrant impact - long UV's with arguments along the line of (no neg arguments, eval debate after [x] speech) don't need to be responded to.

Policy:

I did this alot. I think competition debates are cool though they probably get bodied by the lie perm. Other than comp debates, this tends to be fairly basic. Just weigh and stuff and it should be a good round. Default judge kick and presume neg unless neg goes for CP or if neg reads uncondo CP.

General thoughts on each CP(wont factor into decision) - PICs, Adv CPs are probably non abusive. Agent CPs probably dont compete. Process CPs are non abusive against new affs.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to postround me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Hi, I’m Evan Burns (he/him). I debated in LD for 4 years at Millard North and this is my first year out. I am currently studying actuarial science at UNL.

My email is evanburnsemail@gmail.com if you need to contact me; please include me in any email chain or speechdrop.

TLDR: Read whatever you have fun reading and win on the flow to get my ballot. More specific details are below. If you’re a novice go to the very end there is a section specifically to help you.

First and foremost, make sure your opponent can access the round. Unsafe and bigoted arguments will not be tolerated, this all should go without saying. If it needs saying within round, then you’ll lose and probably need to talk to your coach about it.

General Things

Tech>Truth. I vote based on who is winning the flow.

My goal when evaluating the round is to evaluate the flow with as little intervention as possible. In my mind, assuming or defaulting to some method of evaluating is intervention. What this means for you is I do my best to not vote on presumption or permissibility unless explicitly told a reason to. Tell me what matters in the debate and why, so I don’t have to baselessly make the decision what does.

Don’t assume I know your authors and assume I don’t have topic knowledge. The more complex a position you’re reading the more time you need to explain what that position actually is.

Extensions should have warrants. I want a warrant pulled through the entire round for me to feel good voting for an argument/impact.

Weigh your impacts, don’t make me decide which impact matters the most. Weigh why it matters under whatever framework/ROB/weighing mechanism you have. Do meta-weighing of which weighing mechanisms are the most important. Weigh, weigh, weigh; more weighing can almost always help you and almost always makes my job evaluating the round easier.

Judge instruction is good, it makes it much clearer to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t set aside time for giving judge instruction with me as your judge but do refer to how the line by line is contributing to you getting the ballot.

You know how to signpost; I shouldn’t need to ask you to do it.

Evidence sharing is a must in debate, speechdrop is easier for me but get your case to your opponent and myself however you want to.

I will vote for disclosure theory and lean towards disclosure being good. This doesn’t mean I always vote for disclosure, just win the argument or win the argument that disclosure is bad. In most instances it’s also worth asking before the round for the case and not just getting your disclosure shell ready.

Sit or stand, do whatever is comfy.

Cross-ex certainly exists. Don’t stall too much time in it or be too mean in it. I don’t flow it but I do pay attention. If you want to mention it in a future speech, go ahead just be sure to be specific with what was said during cx and what you are trying to get out of it.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters are fine with it.

Specifics

Trad/Framework: I am perfectly fine with these rounds and am very familiar with them. If this is how you want to debate don’t feel obligated to do something more complex just because I’m fine with more complex arguments. If I’m on a panel with judges who prefer trad debates, don’t think you’re boring me by going for their ballot, just try to win the flow and have some clash. Debating value is strategic in 1/10 trad rounds, before you argue why your value is so much more important than your opponent’s assess whether you are in a round where that is round. If your criterions/frameworks/single standards are different then clash between them is important otherwise I have 0 clue how to

Ks: Ks are fun read them with a couple specific things in mind. I am familiar with most stock Ks and can follow along with most Ks that are read some amount in debate. If you’re reading something especially obscure put in the legwork in explaining it more. Specific links are always better than generic. Be specific about what prefiat impacts you have (if any). Floating PIKs are shifty, you need to actually define your position. When responding to Ks I much prefer when the perms are specific and applied to the Aff you’re reading. With that in mind, perms=severance should have a specific reason why the Aff’s specific perm severs them from the 1AC. In general specificity will get you much further in most K debates.

K-Affs: As a debater I read these occasionally and have less to say about them. If you read one be ready for the T-fwk debate that follows. Topical K-Affs do exist but if you need to ask if you’re K-Aff is topical then it probably isn’t. Don’t waste everyone’s time by insisting your K-Aff is topical when it isn’t. It can be difficult to win that being non-topical is fair so don’t make that you’re primary strategy on the T-fwk debate.

Larp: Larp is not something I personally read a lot, but I’ve debated against it and am familiar with it. Read it if it’s what you want to do, I can keep up with whatever offs you want to read and will evaluate them on the flow. If you want to have a round about more of the theory of larp debate that’s where I’ll start to get a little lost if it gets too dense. When in doubt ask me or spend a little bit more time explaining than you usually would.

Phil: I am fonder of phil debates than most and am familiar with a number of authors; however, I am not fond of phil as a way to just get to presumption/skep/permissibility triggers. Read phil as a position you want to defend, not as a trick. That all being said I enjoy most phil positions if you’re trying to get some offense out of them. Read descriptive frameworks if you want to, they’re cool.

T/Theory: Theory is important to debate, that doesn’t mean it needs to be in every round. Theory that has a point is good, frivolous theory isn’t. I default to competing interps for theory and generally think every RVI should have an argument for why it exists built into it, but I am very open to being convinced a different way of evaluating theory debates is better. Make any arguments you want about what the best way for the judge to approach theory debates as you want. The paradigmatic issues in your shell is very important and skipping it is making the theory debate more difficult for you. The thing I care the most about in theory debates is getting from the standards to the voters. The most straightforward way of in why the standards your norm promotes link best into fairness and education. You can also use other voters than fairness and education, just justify them.

Tricks: Tricks are separate from theory because I don’t think tricks are important to debate. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on tricks but the threshold I have is if an argument takes 5 seconds to make and has half a warrant, then I don’t have a problem with your opponent spending 5 seconds on it and giving half a warrant against it. Blowing up a blip into half of your next speech is also not a good practice.

Speed: I’m fine with speed, but it’s good practice to check if your opponent is. Don’t start at you’re full speed and be sure to slow down for tags. Analytics should be differentiated and some amount slower than cards. All that said, the most important thing is clarity. It doesn’t matter how fast you are if nobody can understand you.

Speaks: Speaks are kind of arbitrary, I’m not going to be tanking your speaks but I’m not giving everyone a 30 because speaks still matter for breaks and seeding. 28.8-29.2 is what I consider to be average. You can make arguments about getting higher speaks in round, just have a warrant.

RFDs: My online RFD is usually more in depth than my verbal one, but if there is something specific you are curious about feel free to ask after round or find me later at the tournament. Arguing with me after round or post-rounding are probably not a good idea, but if you don’t understand or disagree with why I voted the way I did, try to ask questions to have a better understanding of where I might disagree with you.

Debate is supposed to be fun, don’t take it too seriously and have a good time.

Anything I might have missed you can email me or ask me in person and this paradigm will continue to be updated as I think of things I want to add.

FOR NOVICES

First just please signpost and tell me what argument you are responding to in your rebuttals it makes the round much less messy. If I don't know where to put an argument on the flow it is difficult to evaluate. Signposting only serves to help your arguments make it onto my flow.

In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. Don't just say, "Extend x because it was conceeded" to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round. The easiest way to do this is to explain why your impacts weigh the highest under both frameworks. I will evaluate the round by looking at which framework wins and then using that framework to see which debater has the most important impacts they are winning. This can be easily shown to me by saying at the end of the round, "Judge you vote Aff/Neg because X outweighs under Y framwork because of ABC. This impact happens because of DEF scenario."

In my RFD I will explain why I voted the way I did, what arguments factored into my decision, and which did not, as well as non-voting issues to help you become better debaters. If you have any questions about anything in the round feel free to ask.

Feel free to ask before round if you have any specific questions about my paradigm and good luck novices!

I debated for 4 years at Millard North across LD, CX, and PF on both local and national circuit.

Make sure to weigh, extend offense you want evaluated, and lbl and u should be good.

tech>truth

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey y'all! My name is Phoenix Nehls, and I'm in my senior year of high school at Millard South High School. I'll be judging a few novice rounds this year, so here's some stuff to keep in mind:

FOR ALL:

• I Admire Conviction- strong and eloquent speakers make sense to me. I like it when you're confident not just in your case, but in your cadence
• Tell Me A Story- Even if your case is essentially a kitchen sink, tell me why I should care about that kitchen sink. Strong through lines are very important to me.
• It goes without saying that you should respect your opponents pronouns, accessibility accommodations, religious beliefs, etc. Don't be cruel in an attempt to get ahead.
• Don't spread. Speed is different than spread. Since I'm judging novice I will call speed, not for my own comprehension, but to get you in the habit. You are not here to show off you auctioneering prowess. You are here to debate on substance.

  • FOR LD:

• Framework first. Always connect it to your case. Its the lens I'm supposed to view the round through, and I really want to see a clear story here.
• K's can be cool but make sure your link is definite, and your impacts are clear. Make sure it's specific. (And don't talk down to your opponent if they don't get it right away)
• I'm pretty traditional, so make sure your progressive arguments are well-fleshed out and not super pie-in-the-sky.

SPEAKS: 25- you did something vile and I really should call your parents

26-27: Decent

28: Petty good, but got lost a few times.

29: Very strong, but not perfection.

30: You did something extraordinary