Creighton University 2025 - Studying Psychology + Justice and Peace Studies (Pre-Health)

I debated at Lincoln East from 2017-2021 in Congressional Debate on both the Nebraska & National Circuit.

Currently: Assistant Coach for Millard North

I’m basically a combination of John Holen & Amrit Ammanamachi , so I’ve linked their paradigm, as my judging philosophy mirrors theirs.

Congress:

In Congress every speech one gives should be forwarding debate. Please do not rehash. I pay attention to questioning- both how you respond to questions and how you ask questions in round. That will undoubtedly impact your rankings on my ballot. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I expect there to be clash every speech except the authorship.

A note on being the Presiding Officer:

Being selected from amongst your peers to preside over the chamber is an honor and a privilege. It is a crucial role and is one that needs to be done in both an efficient and accurate (to Parliamentary Procedure) manner. Because of this, I am more than happy to rank PO's.

PF:

I'm a lay judge who cannot handle speed. In the Summary and FF please specifically talk about voters and weigh for me in the end. I'm pretty nice on speaks, but please make sure to adapt!

James Constantino

I judge LD more often than anything else. I was a CX debater in the early ‘90s, but I’m self-taught on LD. More recently, I have been active in judging Congress as well.

GENERAL NOTE
First, any type of behavior that I find abusive will probably lose you the round. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, so if you try to win a round with through deception, constantly interrupting your opponent(s), or just making an attempt to erode the integrity of the event, I cannot accept your arguments.

I DO NOT want to be the one to make the decision about who wins a round; I want you to tell me why you won. This means it is your job to tell me the story of the round. Where was the clash? What were the voters? Why do your impacts outweigh theirs? Leave as little up to my discretion as possible. I will do my best not to have my own opinions and background knowledge influence who wins the round. Please meet me half way on this and make your win explicit.


FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and as I just explained, I don’t want to do that.


SPEED
I can handle moderate speed. I can follow a quickly read and enunciated speech, but if you slurring your words together, hyperventilating, or just being unclear, I will call “clear” twice: once to get you to adjust and a second time to remind you. After that, I will cease to flow and your opponent(s) is no longer responsible to address your incoherent arguments. Unintelligible spreading should only exist in a round where cases have been shared prior to the debate round.

REBUTTALS
It is a debater’s obligation to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal speeches. A debater that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as arguments that go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line work in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point. As stated above, YOU should be the one to tell me the main clash of the round and why you won.

SPEAKER POINTS
My scale is essentially as follows:

· 30 – Perfection/deeply impressive.

· 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy

· 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

· 27 - Average

· 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways

· 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people

CONGRESS

I'm a bit old school here: Congress was a Speech event when I debated. That being said, I still expect warranted arguments which build upon or refute the arguments of other competitors. Outstanding representatives have a speaking style which sets them apart from their opponents.

High School Debate is a competition and a chance to prepare you for the real world at the same time. There is a high chance in real life that you will have a job that will require you to argue, defend, find, and propose solutions for many of the real problems we have in life. Whether you are an aspiring doctor, scientist, lawyer, businessman, CEO, IT computer scientist, plumber, carpenter, mechanic, engineer, politician, etc. skills you learn in debate prepare you for the vast majority of jobs in the real world. Public Speaking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills greatly improve while doing high school debate. Many of the most successful people who have ever walked this earth did debate at some point in their lifetime. That said, debate is an opportunity to learn and grow, and that you may not get it right the first time, but the important thing is to keep learning and being civil to one another!

For all congress rounds, I look for overall content, argumentation/refutation, and delivery. To go over the fundamentals of strong content and argumentation, I want to see your claim, warrant, and impact for each argument you make! Your claim should be clear and concise, and your warrants need to explain WHY and HOW your claims and data are true. For example, there is a difference between saying Drinking water is important, and Drinking water is important because according to (a source), you can’t survive more than 4 days without water. Finally, your impacts need to explain why does this matter? This is where you get to explain how this saves money and/or lives and connects it with the constituents that you are representing in the congress. This is where quantification with specific numbers and impact calculus (scope, magnitude, probability, and timeframe) become important for your fellow representative to be more bought in on your claims! How effectively you explain your impacts can make or break your speech! Always, always, always make sure to have all 3 components! If you forget one or more of them, then your speech will have quite a bit of holes in it for others to attack you!

To emphasize the importance of refutation, I look for how you interact with the congress under the present circumstances and your arguments overall. If you are not the author, sponsor, or first neg, I expect you to at least address the content already brought up and/or refute one or more of your fellow representatives. REFUTATION IS ESSENTIAL!!!! You need to have it! Without it, this isn't debate! Refutation also indicates that you are being an active listener and just makes your speech stronger by at least connecting your arguments with those already presented in the round!

Overall speech adaptation and round awareness are very important for this event. For each piece of legislation, you are essentially working as a collective group on your side to explain why your side is the side we should all pick! I am a firm believer that where you speak in the round must be well adapted to where we are in the debate! For every bill, the first 2 speeches (Authorship/Sponsorship, and 1st NEG) need to set the stage well, explain ambiguous terms, and contextualize with historical or current events! Then, the next 6-12 speeches need to be adding NEW content to the debate and back-and-forth REFUTATION! Finally, once numerous arguments and speeches have been given, your speech should be based almost entirely on refutation and should be crystalizing/consolidating arguments already brought up to convince your fellow representatives to choose your side unless you have something NEW and substantial to bring up! On this note, please avoid rehash at all costs! Rehash does nothing for a round and just wastes everyone’s time! Rehash either indicates a lack of awareness of what is going on in the round, or the unwillingness to adapt your speech to the appropriate stage in the debate!

For delivery, I would like to see eye contact, fluency, and poise throughout the speech. Being able to talk without depending on a word-for-word paper is the biggest key to mastering delivery! Practicing and learning to give speeches with simple notes and not scripts will help you in the long run. Congress and Debate in general are supposed to be dynamic events as opposed to static events. It's okay if you are one of the first 2 speakers on a bill, but after that, it’s important to be able to adapt as the round goes on and speak on the fly with simple notes and not word-for-word papers. This will also help you immensely with refutation in your speeches! To use a sports analogy, your first few plays can be scripted, but after that, you need to pull out your playbook and adjust to what the other team is throwing at you, and if you just stick to your set of pre-determined strategies no matter what, you likely will not succeed.

If you do all or most of these things mentioned above, your speech will score very high and it's a great way to ensure you have high-quality speeches! I look for overall quality over quantity! 2 home run speeches are better than 5 mediocre/bad ones! Giving the most speeches does not necessarily give you the win, and not being able to speak on a bill is not going to set you back! It’s always better to choose your spots wisely to speak. In Congress, you have a very finite amount of opportunities to speak! Therefore, it’s always better to put your best speeches on display if you can, and not waste those opportunities on sub-par speeches, but of course, some speech is better than no speech. The big picture is to just be aware of what you have prepared and be strategic when you speak. If you know that you don’t have a good speech on this bill, but you know you will for the next one, it’s wise to give your best one in that case, and know how to make that speech better next time! While it’s not the end of the world if you cannot speak on every piece of legislation due to certain circumstances, try to give a speech for the vast majority of legislation available. If you can’t speak on a bill for some reason, you can always participate in questioning to show that you are still involved in the round!

My Scoring Rubric: (Out of a 6 point NSDA rubric)

6 - Great Argumentation, Evidence, Sources, and Impacts. Well Developed-Refutation. Speech was well structured as a whole and mostly delivered without the use of a word-for-word paper. Points were original with no rehashed arguments. You used the 3 minutes well, and the speech made a great contribution to the round. Responses to questions were very prepared and professional. Also, the speech was well adapted to the appropriate stage in the debate. (This score is not easy to get, If you get one from me, you should feel very proud and expect a very good rank on your ballot).

5 - Argumentation was solid with evidence and impacts. Refutation was included and made a positive contribution to the debate. Speech was delivered solidly with minimal lapses and made an effort to make eye contact with your fellow representatives. There may be a small area or two of improvement needed in your speech that will likely earn you a 6 next time. Overall, this is a very great score and a couple of pieces of improvement will be scoring you at a 6 in no time.

4 - Speech may be missing a couple of key components such as sources, impacts, or refutation. Argumentation could be smoothed out a bit with more structure. Speech had some good components to be proud of. Speech is going in the right direction. Integrate my feedback and you should be scoring much higher in the future. Overall, this score means that you did some things well and have some improvement to do at the same time.

3 - Normally the bare minimum I give. Speech is missing a few key components. Speech may be too short, not developed enough. Argumentation may need some specific improvement. Rehash and dependence on a pre-written script may be present. Speech structure and development may be needed. Speaker may need to be more prepared to respond to questions next time.

2 - Speech had no purpose. Speaker was off-topic and made no contribution to the round. Speech may have no evidence and impacts and was just a few sparse sentences. This score normally is not given unless the speech was very sparse.

1 - Speech was given on the wrong side or speech was under a minute with no substantial information brought up. This score will also be automatically given if your speech was rude or offensive or even trying to offend another student. Any major rude or offensive behavior will result in a warning and be reported to your coach and you will not be ranked on my ballot for that tournament. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TO EACH OTHER!

As parliamentarian, I will look for overall decorum, parliamentary etiquette, and adherence to Robert's Rules of Order! This means taking initiative by making motions when appropriate, addressing the chamber if something is not right, and functioning as a coherent house and not just for your self-interest. Also, being attentive to the round (Taking Notes and Researching is fine) and not being a distraction in the round also factored in when evaluating overall decorum.

Also, it's your job to make motions and understand where we are in the parliamentary procedure! The PO should not have to remind you to make motions! Understanding parliamentary procedure and the order of proper motions is key to making the congress sessions very efficient! Although decorum and etiquette are not reflected in the points you earn, they can be used to help determine and nuance your final rank at the end of the session.

A note about POs

Presiding Officers have a crucially important job in each session. One could argue, the Presiding Officer is the most important student in the round because of how procedural-based Congress Debate is. Because of this, I am more than willing to rank POs anywhere on my ballot. However, PO rankings are not an entitlement by mere virtue of being the PO. I evaluate POs on how they handle Robert’s Rules of Order throughout the round as well as parliamentary procedure and should run an efficient congress. As a PO, you were chosen by your fellow representatives for a reason and you owe it to them to run an efficient congress before them. For varsity rounds in particular, make sure to practice and really know the parliamentary procedure before deciding to be PO. Ideally, the PO should be able to run the entire session with little to no help from any of the judges. This means reminding the chamber if something is wrong! It’s ok if you screw up once or twice, but overall make sure you know what you are doing! Practicing before you do it in a session of Congress is the biggest key to performing the best during a round!

Have Fun! I want to see you all succeed! Best wishes!

Please ask me before a round if you have any questions!

National Semifinalist in Congress in 2011, have been judging Congress & PF since. Experienced Congressional parliamentarian.

General

The purpose of high school debate is to learn how to analyze & weigh information and determine the best course of action, together - and in the real world, you'll be doing this with a wide variety of people from all across the spectrum of humanity. Therefore, your arguments should always be given as if presented to a layperson with zero prior background knowledge or experience. Give background, carefully explain, illustrate your warrants & impacts clearly, and explicitly tie them into your stance on the topic; ensure that any layperson listening could easily follow you to your argument's conclusion.

My job is to enter each round as a layperson, with a completely clean slate & mind, and judge who made the strongest arguments; it's not my place to bring my prior knowledge or experience into play, let alone be the arbiter of truth and correctness - it's how well you argue against the other side. If one side makes arguments that are weak, shaky, or flawed, it's up to the other side to point that out - and if they don't, those arguments may very well carry. That being said: if you make arguments that clearly don't pass the sniff test (i.e., points that to any reasonable outside observer seem to be logically sketchy, misrepresentative, or unfounded), those will count against you - so bring the evidence, cite your sources (tell me who they are, establish their credibility, and tell me why I should believe them), and back up your claims.

Finally: If you make any claim of the form "if X does/doesn't happen, then Y will/will not happen", clearly explain why & how. Never take for granted that Thing 1 happening will necessarily lead to Thing 2 happening - clearly establish that link for me and your audience, telling me why it's either certain or at least likely that this chain of events will occur.

Congress

We as a student Congress debate important issues that tangibly affect a lot of people, and you may not always be one of them. If you're truly passionate about a topic and your stance on it, speak like it. If not, that's okay: argue for the sake of ensuring that this body chooses the best course of action, and deliver your arguments clearly for that end.

(Note: this is not political theater. Your speeches aren't performance art pieces. Don't fake passion and enthusiasm or grandstand on every issue. Actual politics has enough of that already, and has become such a sh*tshow due in no small part to unauthentic, insincere people who inflame passions for votes. Don't act - when you actually care, it shows, and when you don't, it's obvious to all.)

Quality over quantity: doesn't matter how many speeches you give if you make solid, knockout arguments. For me, length doesn't matter either. No, judges can't specifically award NSDA points to a speech under 60 seconds - but who cares. Having good debate is what actually matters, and if you deliver a solid point that makes a difference in the debate, doesn't matter how many seconds it takes to deliver it - in fact, in the real world, the more concise the better.

Your goal as a Congress house is to pass legislation, to actually take action and do things and create solutions to these problems, not to just say no and point out the flaws in everything that comes across your desk (again, see our current political discourse). Use the amendment process: if a piece of legislation has flaws that can be changed, change them! If you vote against hearing or passing a given amendment, and then proceed to speak in negation of the legislation (or have earlier in the round) based on the flaw that amendment specifically addresses, you'd better give a darn good reason why you've shot down a solution to your problem.

Public Forum

Convince me. As far as I'm concerned, each team has four speeches and three cross-ex periods in which to convince me that you're right and the other side is wrong - I'm listening to all of them, and I don't particularly care what pieces of information and argument are supposed to be given when. And during cross-ex, keep it civil - we're all on the same team, trying to figure out the best course of action for the common good. Ask questions, allow your opponents to answer fully, and treat them with respect.

The following is just a few brief ideas, so if you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round when everyone is present. In general, I will vote on the issues you tell me are most important in the round.

I competed in policy debate in the late 90's. After high school I was away from debate for several years, but I have been a coach at Norfolk Senior high for the last 14 years working with PF, LD, and congress. Within the last few years, my primary focus has been PF and congress.

In any style of debate, I find it important for you to weigh the impacts of your arguments for me. Tell me why you are winning the round by analyzing both sides in a side-by-side comparison that shows how you outweigh. Tell me what arguments are most important, why they are most important, and how you have won them. I will vote on the issues you tell me to vote on.

In PF:

I like the idea that the judge is suppose to be someone who is unfamiliar with debate, so I expect you to not just throw out debate jargon, but explain the issue thoughtfully, logically, and with sound evidence to support your position. As far as plans, counterplans, and kritiks, I don't feel PF is the place for these, and will not weigh them heavily in the round. If you choose to run them anyway and your opponent calls you out for it, they will win. If they don't, then I will look at how they impact the round. Lastly, I do believe that second speaker needs to address both sides of the flow in the rebuttal speech.

In LD:

I very much like the value/criteria debate. I do not believe your value/criteria has to win the round for you to win if you are able to link into theirs and win there. I don't mind speed if you do it with clear articulation. I also have no problem with plan/counterplan/kritik arguments in LD. Just make sure they link back to both the resolution and the value/criteria debate.

In Congress:

Argumentation is key. I want to hear original claims well supported with cited evidence. I don’t want you to just repeat what other representatives said before you. If you are the authorship/sponsorship speech, make sure to explain how how this legislation could solve a current issue. First neg should tell what is wrong with the legislation AND refute the speech before. All speeches after authorship/sponsorship should refute previous speeches. When one of your arguments have already been used by another, make sure to add something new to it or don’t use it. If you rehash, you will lose speech points. When two speakers are equal in providing well done argumentation, then I look at speaking ability/presentation. It is okay to have prewritten arguments and read them IF you are making adjustments in round and referencing previous speakers. You will loose points for reading a prewritten speech that ignores all other representatives unless you are the author/sponsor. If you choose not to use notes, make sure you know what you are saying. It is not a benefit to not read and sound like you have no idea. It hurts credibility. Finally, to rank well, be present. Ask questions, take notes, participate constantly.

Final thought:

This is your round, I will vote on the issues you tell me are the most valuable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For circuit tournaments: I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

LD

TOC 2024: I have mostly judged Policy this year (and especially this semester), so I have not judged on this current topic. I did judge some LD first semester. Additionally, I have coached and debated on a lot of foreign policy topics over the years and have a personal interest in Middle East politics (ie I read about it in my free time). So make of all that what you will when filling out prefs.

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

I'm a fourth year judge. Speed is acceptable. Make sure that you flow through, or I won't consider it. If you make an assertion, mostly likely I'm going to need some evidence that that is true unless you can find a logic that would make your analysis true.

I'm going to take the evidence that the Congress or the executive wants to do something on very flimsy basis unless you can show support that it is mostly likely going to pass through both branches.

Hello debaters! My name is Onjoy Mahmood. I competed in Congressional Debate for Lincoln Southwest from 2018-2022. Here is what I will be looking for while I am judging. However, I will deviate from other judges and I'll tell you what I want to see in order for me to CONSIDER giving you a 1st place ranking in a given session...

--THE BASICS--

• Speeches must have an engaging intro. I will not penalize for saying "Representatives of the Congress assembled here today, I stand in aff/neg because..." But you will be rewarded for giving me a nice anecdote/statistic to start your speech. I also want to see a clear roadmap of what you will talk about in your speech
• Use the Claim->Warrant->Impact formula for your speeches as much as you can
• Have good sources. I will reward speeches that have sources that come from high-profile newspapers (country of origin does not matter as long as it directly relates to your speech), university studies, or other high-level institutions. If you cannot find such sources because of the nature of the bill, that is fine, just make sure you tell us how the person/organization you refer to is qualified to talk about the subject at hand.
• IMPACTS, IMPACTS, IMPACTS... this is the most important part of your speech along with refutation. Tell me why your points and your evidence matter in the flow and context of the debate and leverage your impacts against other arguments when debating the topic
• Refutation and impacts go hand in hand. This is a DEBATE event. Win the "argument matchup" -- your argument has to defeat the argument(s) presented from the other side to do this. Using your impacts as a base for refutation is a really good idea.
• Your speaking style needs to have intensity and aggression. Be passionate about what you are talking about. After all, you are representing your constituents in Congress. Show that you care.
• Your points in your speech should be flowing well, one to another
• Be active in questioning. Use questioning blocks when called whenever you can. It will show that you are engaged and that you want to learn and succeed

--OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES--

• I reward quality and consistency of speeches in my rankings. My ranking formula is fairly simple - I take the average score of all the speeches you gave and then look at the consistency of your speech scores, and rank accordingly... so keep that in mind when you prepare and give speeches in round

• You must speak extemporaneously. I don't want to see you reading from your computer for 3 minutes straight
• I am trusting that you are not embellishing or lying about your sources. I am using the Honor System
• No rehash!!!
• Last but certainly not least, I will not tolerate any racism, homophobia, ableism, sexism, misogyny, or any other statements/conduct that is disrespectful to anyone else. You will be heavily penalized in your ranking for such behavior, regardless of how well you perform. This is not to hurt you, or your debate career, or your general future; but instead to teach that the aforementioned behaviors are not acceptable in society. I hope and nor do I think that I will have to use these rules against anyone, but I have seen this type of behavior in rounds before, and I do not want to see it again.

I know I gave you all a lot to mull over, but I say all this because I want to see you all succeed. I wish all of you successful tournament and season!

I did both speech and debate for 4 years at Creighton Prep High School in Omaha Nebraska. I've also debated for the University of Sydney in Australia. I mostly have experience in PF, Congress, Extemp, Info, and BP debate.

Policy:

You're pretty much screwed... I know absolutely nothing about it and probably never will.

LD:

I don't have a strong background but I've seen enough to be able to judge a minuscule amount. Probably should treat me like a lay judge to be safe

- I am a huge fan of creativity in argumentation. I want to see nuanced argumentation with impacts that aren't basic (this applies to all forms of debate)

Speed

- I'm usually able to keep up pretty well but if you're just dumping arguments to dump them don't expect a strong speaker score or a vote for your side

- Whether you go fast or slow I really value fluidity

PF:

- In terms of argumentation as long as you can impact it back to the resolution I'm good with it. Make sure to impact all arguments though

- Please explain the impacts. Why should I care that the gold market will collapse? If you don't explain I'll just assume it means no bad impacts and the argument was just smoke

- I expect more persuasion and spin instead of spreading. If you do go faster there should be an equal ratio of analysis to justify why you needed to spread to create that extra time.

- I do listen to cross ex so use it wisely

- Be respectful. Speaking louder does not make you more right...

Speed

- refer to my LD section on this

Congress:

- This is probably where I am most experienced

- don't rehash, open wifi means that finding new arguments and evidence is so much easier.

- one of my biggest pet peeves is just a great speech with nothing else. Congress is not dueling oratories. Unless you are 1st aff or neg, I expect you to interact with what your opponents have said before you and extend.

- this is a debate so please actually debate. Sessions are long and I just like you must sit through them except I can't take personal privileges so please give me a reason to stay focused.

- Congress is the one event where speaking is so so important in terms of ability. I don't expect you to be the next Abraham Lincoln but please speak clearly and coherently. I value strong argumentation with strong impacts as well. If you give me 1 great speech that is worth 3 average ones. Someone once told me the greatest speech you can ever give is the one you don't give. This does not mean don't speak but rather don't keep speaking for the sake of speaking. Pick and choose your spots wisely.

- Puns. God do I hate basic cheesy openers. I mostly see this at nationals but please be unique and don't be stupid. Rapping will not give you the win and neither will singing your intro. I respect the theatre aspect of Congress but less is always more

If there's something I can do for you please let me know!

GOOD LUCK!!!!

I'm a second-year judge (graduated Millard South in 2022) and did congress for all four years of high school; As such I judge Congress primarily but have been getting experience with PF.

I believe that your goal during a debate is to present your position in the best light possible, so I'll be looking at whether your arguments are good advocacy for your overall contentions as well as if they're properly substantiated.

Properly cited evidence from reputable sources is key, and each time I hear an empirically falsifiable claim I'd like to hear some type of data to go along with it. The way I see it, anecdotes do have a place in debates, but never as a substitution for proper evidence. An anecdote can't be used to demonstrate how often something happens, but it could be used as a powerful example for how something may happen. Always tie your sources into your impacts and try to use data responsibly within its proper context.

Tone and presentation are also important, because they play a big role in how you're perceived. Sounding confident or being hard to rattle during questioning are always good skills to refine, but I'm aware that some debaters (myself included) do the sport in order to build the presentation skills and confidence that they don't already have, so I won't be judging very harshly on this (especially for novices). As a bare minimum, just make sure that you're audible and that your presentation doesn't detract too much from your ability to argue.

Clash is very important. Come prepared to overhaul some or all of your speech in response to the speeches given by your opponents.

Be kind to your fellow debaters. Your competitors aren't your enemies and there is no reason to be disrespectful, discriminatory, or bigoted. If a speech has abusive or inappropriate behavior (racism, sexism, transphobia, or disproportionate hostility), I will not score that speech very highly. This standard is consistent with my standards for effective advocacy.

For Congress: Be genuine with your contentions and your votes. If somebody makes an amendment that would fix one of your negation arguments, you should be voting for that amendment even though it would suck for your speech for it to be passed. Because it IS noticeable if somebody points out a flaw with a bill, an amendment is presented to solve that flaw, and that same person contributes to the failure of that amendment.

6 years of judging in PF and Congress

Overall Expectations:

Be respectful to your fellow competitors and judges. Debate is educational as well as competitive and the skills that you learn and develop within your event will serve you well later in life. I speak on this as a former debater.

Take pride in the work that you do. It can be very obvious when you are not as prepared. There is an element of debate that does require improvisation and being able to form arguments on the spot but the best arguments are still those that have an element of preparedness to it. Find that balance and I promise it will reflect well on your ballot.

Just like you, I am still learning how to be a good judge, so I ask for some patience, especially in events like PF and LD where I do not have nearly as much experience as I do with Congress.

Any kind of argument based on bigoted ideology will result in an instant loss of the round and I will be discussing it with you and your coach.

Congress:

Congress is probably the most unique of all of the debate events done at the NSDA level. The speed is much slower and you must be more tactical when you choose to speak. This does not make it any less debate and expect you to be paying attention to what your fellow competitors are doing in the session. I love clash and have no problem with you doing it from the beginning. Call each other out while staying as respectful as possible, we don't need this to descend into actual Congress.

Respect is paramount in Congress. While an individual event you should work together with your fellow representatives/senators to come up with strategies, set the docket, and pass legislation. This is a mock Congress and you should take into consideration the needs of the people you are supposed to be representing.

Questions are super important in debate and I consider it when making my decision. Quality is always more important than quantity. I'd rather that you be asking 1 or 2 good questions than 5 or 6 not-so-good ones.

PF:

The main element that is needed within PF is the ability to adapt. Not only to your opponent but to your judge as well. I am not a very technical judge. While keeping track of your flows your argument needs to make sense. You can't just argue that if the status quo changes it will lead to nuclear war. I need a sound argument of cause and effect. If the prompt proves to be true then it will lead to these side effects.

If your point is landing don't drag it along toward the end. Cut it out if you can't get past your opponent's refutation. The best debaters don't force through an argument but are flexible and creative enough to still get the point even when one of their points doesn't work.

During cross don't talk over one another. You are not proving a point you are just being rude. I will be paying attention during cross and will be using that to weigh into my decision. If you are talking I am listening. The first time I won't say anything but if it continues to become a problem I will say something and you don't want your team to lose a point because of it.

LD:

I am relatively new to judging LD so please bear with me.

If you have any questions please feel free to email me at sky.stefanski14@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

Bio:

I did LD in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (so I am only familiar with a very trad form of LD) and I did Extempt speech in 2019 for a short period of time. I did Congress in 2019, 2020, and 2021 & coached LSW Congress from 2021-2023

I am a student at UNL studying Criminology with a concentration in History and minors in Sociology, English, and Digital Humanities.

Congress:

• have some decorum! it's important to follow PO rules & https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf
• Present: Clearly, loudly, & respectfully
• Debate: Respond to arguments made in the round & don't rehash (repeat the points or evidence of another without adding to the debate in some significant way)
• Involvement: Ask questions whenever you can of other debaters, make motions, & flow the round
• have a golly good time & be nice to each other

• sources should have a year & author's last name (at minimum) and should not have the month or day (unless you can justify it's inclusion via relevance)
• PO's: I will rank you, but I take mistakes pretty seriously, especially if they result in someone not getting a speech when they should have. A lot of the time I will keep track of the precedence and recency myself as well so I know how to rank your abilities.

PF:

• display sound logic and reasoning
• present clash
• communicate ideas with clarity & practice decorum, and be nice to your opponents!
• do not spread, I will knock on the table or say clear if you are doing so to the point of me not understanding.
• arguments will be weighed to the point that they are well explained, if an argument uses too much technical language, or is given too fast you just might notice that in your RFD! I am a "well-informed citizen" treat me as such
• have fun! we are all here to learn and enjoy our time as we debate ideas and contribute in a creative way to our peers in an effort to expand our thinking
• I expect you all to time yourselves and be honest about that. I may also keep track of time, but no guarantees. For novices, I will likely be keeping track of time, and I am willing to give you 30-second warnings during prep if you would like.
• making up evidence isn't cool, don't do it

borrowed heavily from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/NFL_PF_judging.pdf

LD:

- Not familiar with many Kritical arguments or Kritiques so you need to explain them clearly, do not assume I will understand without an explanation! Do not assume I know all of the jargon you are using, explain it!!

- Will happily vote on progressive LD stuff, nontopical affs, K's, and all the other fun stuff! just need definitions

- Slow down a bit, or I unfortunately will not understand your argument.

- If you make your argument clear, address your opponent's argument, are respectful, speak loudly and clearly, you will succeed!

- prefer having access to the cases so I can read along but it is not a necessity

(This next portion is stolen from Prema Vasudevan's paradigm)

"I believe that debate is an educational space, and we are all trying to learn! Please do your part to foster a welcoming environment where everyone can learn from each other and engage with each other’s ideas. In short, please be respectful towards your opponent (and me) so we can all learn and have a good time at debate.

- If you are running any arguments that are sensitive, or even if you think your arguments may be sensitive, please provide a content warning before the round begins. I think this is vital to creating a positive environment in the debate space. If you feel you are not comfortable engaging in a round due to sensitive content please feel comfortable letting me know and we can figure out what to do next.

- I have absolutely no tolerance for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. in the debate space. Such behaviors are unacceptable, I will not hesitate to drop you on the face, your speaker points will reflect this, and I will contact your coach to address these issues.

- I tended to lean more traditional as a debater, but I have experience with a wide variety of arguments. If you have more progressive or 'out there' arguments or debating style there is one thing that is very important to keep in mind: I am open to hearing any arguments so long as I understand your argument. Have a clear understanding of your arguments, and clearly explain those arguments to me and your opponent.

- I do not vote for disclosure theory. I encourage debaters to file share if there are internet issues with tourneys over zoom but I do not vote for theory based on disclosure on the wiki.

I think my former coach put it best so I will have to quote him here: "I strive to be open to all forms of argument, but both I and your opponent need to understand them in order to have an effective debate."

All:

I judge rounds to the best of my ability and in good faith. If my RFD is not clear or you would like to ask me questions about my judging feel free to do so!

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

Win the flow. As simple as that.

In terms of your constructive arguments or "original case":

I don't mind "creative" contentions so long as they are properly supported. This means that your primary contentions only need to be tangentially related, so long as you provide a cognizable link to the resolution. It is your opponent's job to raise a valid defense, call irrelevance, or reframe the more important arguments.

This gives you a lot of freedom to implement "more interesting" arguments. However, this is not a pass to present truly abusive or wholly non-topical arguments.

In terms of responding to your opponent's case:

I will vote for whoever wins the flow. Therefore, I like when debater's roadmap clearly and give explicit voters. I don't count roadmaps against a debater's time so long as they are less than 30 seconds.

I will not flow an argument in your favor unless you tell me why I should. Conversely, if your opponent drops a contention completely, I won't flow it in your favor unless you tell me to. I firmly believe that it is the judge's job to flow all arguments, but it is not the judge's job to debate/argue in their mind for you.

Speed:

I personally cannot handle that much speed. I can listen to you when you talk a little fast but, keep in mind a judge can't flow what I can't understand. If you choose to talk fast you have to enunciate your words. If you are talking too fast I will say clear. If you choose to continue at that speed I will say clear again. If I still am unable to flow and understand you then I will drop my pen and stop flowing until I am able to understand you.

Logistics:

Pre-flow before you come into the room. Keep your own time. If you don't already have the time constraints and speech order memorized, make sure to write it down before we start.

Cross-examination/Crossfire:

I don't care if you sit during these. In PF, I prefer teams to alternate asking and answering questions (unless it's a very brief follow-up). If not, a lot of unnecessary time gets taken up by asking/negotiating who is going to take the next question.

Have fun and be civil.