Tabroom.com

2023 Kaspar Cup at Millard South

2023 — Omaha, NE/US

PF judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Anton Angeletti Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 7:26 AM CST

Anton Angeletti - he/him/his - aangelettidebate@gmail.com

Background: In high school, I competed in public forum for Lincoln Southwest, mostly on the Nebraska circuit. Graduated in 2022, currently a Computer Science + Mathematics major at UNL.

Don't be disrespectful. Safety and inclusivity come before everything else in debate.

GENERAL

I don't coach, so it's best to assume I know very little about the topic

I evaluate on the flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in both summary and final focus.

Rebuild/frontline in 2nd rebuttal, you don't need to in 1st

Summary is the most important speech. I'd recommend collapsing on important arguments instead of trying to bring everything through, but I don't care what structure or strategy you go for as long as it's consistent in the latter half of the round.

Extending evidence: don't just tell me the author's name, tell me what they say and why it matters

If you want something from cross to matter in the round, bring it up in a speech

Signposting is more important than offtime roadmaps (but both are nice)

Tech > truth, unless you're straight up lying

Do the weighing for me, impacts matter more and more as the round progresses

Clash is super important. Make sure you're debating at each other, not past each other

Defense isn't sticky, extend your responses or I won't evaluate them

If you control the narrative for the round, you win the round

The messier an argument gets, the more likely I am to ignore it completely.

Procedural stuff:

Email chains are the best way to share evidence

I won't flow off speech docs, barring tech issues

Time yourselves, as well as each other

If you make an effort to keep the round running quickly, I'll bump speaks

Theory: I'd much rather judge substance than theory/other progressive arguments (doesn't mean I won't vote on it though). Feel free to ask me about it if you're thinking about running an off.

Any questions, just ask me before/after round or email me at aangelettidebate@gmail.com.

Miranda Cannon Lincoln Southeast High School

Kobe Cooper Lincoln Southeast High School None

Trey Fenton Lincoln Southeast High School

Toni Heimes Hire

Michelle Keever Millard South High School

Ethan Kimbrough Millard West High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:58 PM CST

I am a former policy and congress debater from the Kansas City, MO circuit. I am a stock issues judge, and will ask that you stick primarily to them throughout the debate. I really cannot stand extinction impacts, whether climate, nuclear war, or anything (exception for util value/criterion). Additionally, I almost never pick up pre-fiat K's, unless you just debated better than your opponent. Any questions can be emailed to ethank6398@gmail.com.

Policy: Why stock issues: I believe this is the most fair interpretation of policy in the "spirit of debate" simply because each team will have its advantages and disadvantages to having to focus on these issues. While it may seem particularly advantageous for the neg to be able to only topple one of the stock issues and win, the aff has the clear advantage of being able to have essentially limitless prep time to prepare for these rebuttals. I will judge the round assuming these advantages. Ultimately, the AFF should spend considerable time establishing Topicality, Significance, Harms, Inherency, and Solvency as it relates to the specific plan text. The NEG should focus on one or more of these items in an attempt to "knock out" one of these core pillars.

LD: I have a fairly limited understanding of LD from an experience standpoint, but I am quite familiar with philosophy and the core arguments that you might be presenting. If you're worried that I might not correctly interpret more complicated philosophy, either dedicate more time to clearing this up or perhaps decide to run a different case. I have judged a fair amount of LD rounds, so that shouldn't be an issue. On CPs...how can you run a counter-PLAN if there wasn't a first PLAN! Also, please no AFF K's, that also doesn't really make sense either.

Public Forum: I have participated in public forum rounds before, and have quite a bit of familiarity with it generally. I have judged dozens of PF rounds, so I don't think that I would have any issues with anything that you'd possibly be doing.

General:

- A lot of the time, if each side's case are fairly even, I will likely be evaluating you based on the choices you made in the round, the quality of questions asked/answered, etc. Ultimately, if things are pretty even through case, I will pick the debater who was a slightly better debater in the round.

- Speed isn't a general concern, but considering this is a public speaking competition at it's core, if you aren't clearly demonstrating your points, evidence, etc. then your speaker points will probably reflect that. Just make sure that if you're going to spread, you do it REALLY well. Overall, I really do prefer speaking at a normal pace, simply from a fairness/competitive viewpoint. I should also note that if you're not extremely clear in what you're saying, I will not evaluate something just because you acted like you said it. (For example, just giving me the speech doc is not enough, you MUST be clear in exactly what you're saying.)

- I really am not a huge fan of K debate. I think it's generally pretty poorly designed and executed, so I'd appreciate you staying away from it. If you're going to run one, make it clean and concise, and not too technical.

- I am totally fine with disads in Policy and LD. I also like CPs, but don't really believe that they work in LD... so run at your own risk, or just ask me.

- Neg: If you clearly aren't winning a point, please feel free to drop it. I would rather the debate focus around 1-2 serious points of contention than to have to hear rehashing of the same points throughout the entire round. I think this makes for a much healthier debate round, and again reflects my philosophy on the "spirit of debate."

- I try to be fairly blank slate when it comes to my previous knowledge and background of certain subjects. That is, I believe it to be the responsibility of the opposition to challenge a card or idea's legitimacy and that it should be addressed in round (if it isn't, I'll take it as truth). However, in circumstances where I believe the card or claim to be potentially especially egregious, I may request that you provide me that documentation.

Angela Kwambamba Lincoln Southwest High School

Mary Mckewon Lincoln Southeast High School

Leah McVey Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Mon November 13, 2023 at 11:31 AM EST

I am a Senior, has done debate for 2 years, but the first year was Congress only.

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though. Just being real there.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

Adi Mehlin Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 9:50 AM CST

General notes:

- 3 years of debate experience in PF, Congress, and LD, congress national semifinalist. 3 years of judging and a bit of coaching as well.

- She/her pronouns, you can also just call me judge or Adi

- Don't be sexist, racist, etc. It will kill your speaker points and arguments.

- Generally, be nice and polite! Please normalize content warnings for touchy subjects.

- NO SPREADING. I will stop flowing and cross my arms. I will also yell clear and be really annoying about it. I hate it. Keep speed no more than about 7/10.

- I don't flow cross for arguments, but it can help/hurt your speaker points.

- I will not weigh arguments or impacts without sufficient, credible, real (!), sources. Analytics aren't my thing.

- Have fun!

PF:

- I know I'm the minority in this, but I actually don't feel strongly about disclosure. I'll probably vote on the small school response if it comes down to it, but every round is different.

- I will listen to any type of argument (theory, whatever) and impacts (yes, even extinction). Not a huge fan of these nontrad or extreme arguments, but it's not an auto drop.

- If you like to call for cards, SET UP A SPEECH DROP/EMAIL CHAIN AHEAD OF TIME. I'm not gonna sit there while both sides waste time calling for 40 cards just to look at them for 5 seconds and never mention it again. I will start dropping speaks.

- I’m like 70% truth and 30% tech. If you want to convince of something weird, its possible, but I'll default to truth if you don't meet a high standard.

- 2nd summary and final focus are not places for new arguments. There should be lots of weighing and analysis.

LD:

- Mostly the same stuff as PF so see above!

- I don't know must of the LD specific lingo, but I'll listen to whatever! Just be sure to explain it. Pretty open minded here, just don't be abusive. I want the debate to be fun, accessible, and interesting. You can always ask me questions before round.

- I don't have a tolerance for speed. 7/10 max. 5-6/10 comfortably. I don't care if you send me the doc or not - don't do it. I will vote on speed theory. I'll probably auto-drop if I can't flow it. Just don't do it please!

Garrison Mehlin Lincoln Southeast High School

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School

Chaitra Pirisingula Millard North High School

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 5:16 PM CST

Intro:

Add me to the email chain: chaitrapirisingula@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Chaitra Pirisingula and I use she/her pronouns. I debated for 4 years at Millard North on the local and national circuit. I mostly ran phil and some Ks. I also enjoyed theory and T.

Tech > Truth

Read anything you want as long as you explain it well.

Speed is fine.

Quick prefs:

theory/T/phil - 1

K - 2

LARP - 3/4

tricks - 4

Longer:

Theory/T: I really enjoy these debates even if they are frivolous. I think there should be a lot of weighing with standards and voters. You should read voters but if the debate gets really messy my defaults are fairness>education, no RVI, competing interps, and drop the debater.

Phil: I am most familiar with this type of debate. I've read a lot of frameworks but I am most familiar with Kant, Butler, Levinas, and Macintyre. I think you should always try to line by line a framework as well as make general responses. Make unique arguments and answer your opponents line by line.

Ks: I mostly read cap and set col but I am somewhat familiar with other authors popular in debate. A lot of my teammates were K debaters so most of my knowledge is based on their rounds. As long as you explain your theory well and don't just rely on long prewritten overviews, these can be great debates. I default to T>K but it would be pretty easy to convince me otherwise.

Non-T/Performance: As long as you explain your method well and make the round accessible these rounds are great, but I do think affs should generally have some topic link.

LARP: I probably won't know much about the topic (especially if it's one of the first tournaments on a new topic) so that might make these rounds harder to adjudicate. Evidence comparison is important but also make sure you spend a lot of time answering the warrants of the evidence itself. You should read a framework but I default to util is no other framework is provided.

Tricks: I will listen to them but I don't like voting off blips so my threshold for responses is very low.

Overall, I am open to anything as long as rounds have a lot of clash and you understand your arguments. Be nice, be creative, and have fun!

Jack Rankin Millard North High School

Lexus Root Lincoln HS

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 1:48 PM CST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Ruchti Omaha Central HS

Serena Schadl Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 5:31 AM CST

I am a Sophomore Political Science student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and an Assistant Public Forum Coach for Lincoln Southwest HS.

--> NFA LD @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

--> '23 grad from Lincoln Southwest High School, NE.

--> 4 years in Public Forum @ LSW.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Important:

**I would like for a speech drop / email chain to be started before round for evidence exchanges; please add me to the email chain: schadlserena@gmail.com and/or lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com

**I flow on paper so keep that in mind when you're speaking - I may not get everything down so it is important to emphasize important arguments multiple times!

**All debaters (including PF) should disclose their AFF/NEG cases and rebuttal cards on the wiki: https://opencaselist.com/hspf24 . Disclosure allows for better debates and better researched evidence that holds debaters to a higher evidence standard. I am not sympathetic to the argument that disclosure creates an unfair advantage for your opponents, because good debaters can defend their evidence even if your opponents can prep you out. If you need help or have questions on how to do so, please feel free to reach out to me or any other southwest coach. (this does not mean I will always vote for disclosure theory - see my info on theory in PF for more info).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR - lots of yapping in this paradigm, but here's the gist

How I Evaluate Rounds:

**I am more tech over truth. I will evaluate based off of if you extend your evidence/warrants cleanly throughout speeches. I do not bring my outside knowledge into the round and it is up to you to tell me if I should gut check or call for their evidence. The easiest way to win my ballot is if you clearly warrant, extend, and impact your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am okay with you spreading or going fast in the round, just be conscientious of your opponents and if they're okay with speed. I will not usually call speed - so long as I have a speech doc to check, but may call clear if you're just mumbling. Bottom line, be a good person and be respectful to your opponents.

**50% AFF (43/85) and 50% NEG (42/85)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum:

**Theory (ex. disclosure/paraphrasing) is okay in PF. Run it as you will. I personally believe disclosure is good, but you also have to prove that to me in round. There are many ways to beat these types of arguments, just make sure you have a competitive counter-interp, reasons to prefer, and voters.

**K's generally don't go well in PF, I think running a framework or framing about things like structural violence, etc. is more applicable to the event. Please be topical and relate it to the resolution!

**I think some individuals gets confused over what is considered a counter-plan and what is not in this event. A reminder that counterplans are directly stating that they should do something OTHER than the resolution. [Ex. if the resolution asked if the US should increase trade relations with the EU, a counterplan would be that they should instead increase trade relations with China]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round Preferences:

*Sign-posting & road maps are a must! I need to know where you are on the flow so that I can write it down.

*Speed: I can handle you spreading as long as you a) have a speech doc and b) your opponents are okay with it.

*Impacts: I will vote for anything, so long as it is weighed and brought through each speech.

Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision. Please be kind and respectful during cross, there is a distinction between being assertive and aggressive. Lastly, if something important happened, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.

Rebuttal: Frontlining in second rebuttal is a MUST! First rebuttal should be only attacking your opponent's case- don't restate your own case because it wastes your time (unless it's a cross application).

Summary: This is the most important speech in the round so this should be a time when you are telling me why you should win! I personally did a line by line summary, but giving me voters is also a great option as well. The most important aspect though is that you are weighing and telling me why your warranting and impacts are better than your opponent's.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary, so please match their voters if they gave any. Line by line is not preferable but at least tell me why you're winning. The final focus is intended to focus the round and give overarching claims and important points that give me a comparison between the AFF and NEG worlds.

**be strategic, find ways to collapse your arguments - try not to go for the whole buffet - pick one or two contentions (if you're running more than 2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD/Policy:

I am not as familiar with this event in the high school context as I was a PF debater, but I have transitioned into NFA LD at the college level, so I can understand policy style arguments. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms as well. I would prefer rounds that focus more on policy (case, disads, counterplans, and T) since I'm not as familiar with Ks. But I will also try to adapt to your style and arguments if you so choose to run a K. Also try to refrain from using a ton of jargon in your speeches, especially if you're spreading.

General:

--I think sending a doc before each speech with cut cards (analytics not needed) is a MUST for debaters.

--A lot of times this event tends to be heavy on reading off the doc and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions that happen on the flow. I do NOT want you to just read me cards with no analysis or signposting of where the card interacts on the flow. Also, if you can do some sort of framework weighing, impact weighing, etc. - it'll be much easier to win my ballot.

--Tricks are a no-go for me, but I will vote on most anything if you debate it well enough.

K's, Theory, Topicality:

--K's are much more applicable to these events than PF, you just need to substantially prove to me that the alt can solve back for whatever the AFF is doing. Also, if you have some obscure topic lit. with a bunch of big words - please, please, please explain it so I understand. Same goes for K Aff's, you need to make sure that the roll of the ballot is clear and has solvency.

--Theory is okay with me, just explain to me why this model of debate you're bringing up should be upheld and why it matters. Frivolous theory is not going to go well and I might just not vote on it if it's nonsensical. I will vote on theories like PICs bad, QPQ bad, etc. - but not frivolous theory.

--Topicality should be very clear as to why the opponent is not relating to the topic --- I also don't want you to run T arguments that are abusive (I think definition arguments such as the abbreviation of USFG could mean United States Faceters Guild is not going to get you anywhere and doesn't show any reason for me to downvote the team). But I will vote for T so long as you're extending the interp, standards, and voters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Points:

--For open pool: 26 (needs work, many crucial mistakes), 27 (good arguments, but little clash), 28 (attempts clash, but a few key mistakes) (29 (good argumentation, good clash, few mistakes), 30 (very clear, minimal changes I would make to the speech). Anything below a 26 means something seriously offensive/abusive happened in round.

--For middle school / novice pool: 27 (needs work, no clash in round), 28 (quite a few mistakes, minimal clash, but good arguments), 29 (good argumentation, a few mistakes here an there), 30 (very clear, minimal mistakes, clashed well with opponent's arguments). I will not give anything below a 27 unless something very offensive was said in the round.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Things to Keep in Mind:

**NSDA allows paraphrasing in-round (PF), but if an opponent asks for the cut card and cites w/ author quals, you are obligated to give it to them! Ultimately, if there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical.

*Please don't hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round (via email: schadlserena@gmail.com or IRL)! I am open to discussion of how I evaluated. I completely understand some frustration when judges don't vote in a way that you favor and am open to any discussions about any issues you have with my decision (of course, I will not change my ballot after I submit it).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Me:

--NFA LD Nationals Double-Octofinalist ('24)

--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate

--Competed at NSDA Nationals in World Schools ('22 & '23)

--Nebraska State Quarterfinalist in PF ('22 & '23)

--Competed 4 years in HS Public Forum on National & NE Circuit ('19-'23)

Aarron Schurevich Lincoln North Star

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:49 PM CST

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

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

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

Here's what I'll say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuti Sitesh Millard West High School

Addisson Stugart Marian

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 11:24 AM CST

**I have judged this NFA topic once (1). Please go slow and explain. If youre fast on tags, or fast on theory, it is entirely your fault if you drop because there was an argument I didn’t hear or understand.

They/Them

Email: addissonLstugart@gmail.com

TBH you can probably avoid the rest if you're familiar with Nadia Steck's or Justin Kirks paradigms.

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic. If either opponent doesn't want speed, neither do I.

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

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

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

For public forum debate:

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. IDK how I feel about voting on this theory. I have, but I don't like it.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk; the man, the myth, the legend.

Evelyn Tucker Millard North High School

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 6:47 AM CST

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- evelyntodd2007@gmail.com

Experience:

Competing: I'm currently a debater at Millard North. I'm a third-year debater. I did policy for two years, and I'm currently competing in pf. So far, I have qualified for nationals twice in policy.

General:

I will vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in the summary and final focus, and I will disclose exactly how I made my decision (as long as the tournament allows it).

Tech > Truth
The only time you need a trigger warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
Being blatantly rude to your opponents will get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how “good at debate” you may be, there's no excuse for this.
I’m fine with most speeds as long as it’s clear and you warrant your arguments. If you decide to start spreading/speaking extremely fast I’d prefer a speech doc of some sort to be sent out before you begin.

PF:

Give me an offtime roadmap before beginning your speech
I’d like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Comparative weighing is critical to preventing any sort of judge intervention
Defense isn’t sticky, anything you want in the round has to be in both summary and final focus
Organize your speech and signpost throughout
Speech-by-speech notes:

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus:I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should mirror the summary speech.

Cross: I don’t flow nor listen during cross. If something important happens bring it up in the next speech.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence

Theory:

Due to my background in policy, I have a very comfortable understanding of theory. That being said, I think frivolous theory is dumb. I'll vote on it if it goes unanswered, however I have a very low threshold when it is answered.

Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse.
If you are reading theory either be clear or send a doc before speech.
I probably should tell you that I generally believe both disclosure and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
“Our coach didn’t teach us how to respond to theory” is not an argument. Same with “our coach doesn’t let us disclose” if there’s no proof that’s true. It's just an argument; answer it the same way you would arguments on the topic.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are also not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.

Misc:

If you ask for 30 speaks before I submit my ballot, I'll give it to you (as long as you weren't rude to your opponent).

I don't care if you call me "Judge" or if you call me Evelyn; just do whatever you are more comfortable with.

I don't have preference in arguments. Run the k if you want to, or the politics da. Just make sure to run whatever you're running well.

Debate is supposed to be fun. I fully support trying to trip up your opponents in cross, just don't be rude.

Cristina Villa Marian

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 12:24 PM CST

She/her/hers

First year head coach at Lincoln North Star, third year PF judge. Assistant PF coach at Lincoln Southeast prior.

Disclaimer: I won't tolerate any exclusionary or hateful rhetoric. Debate is a fun and educational experience, and should be a safe and accessible space for all students.

Debate Substance/Content: Whatever arguments you read, clearly show me how your impacts outweigh compared to your opponents. If all your args are warranted, have clear links, and are extended, that's how you'll win my ballot. I don't flow extremely specific numbers/card names, just what it all means, so don't spend too long on that. The better use of your time is focusing on the impact, rather than the actual cards themselves.

***Substance Exceptions: I don't care much for disclosure/debate theory. I don't really think it has a place in PF so I wouldn't suggest running these arguments with me because I'm not going to weigh it. I won't consider disclosure theory unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm not all too familiar with progressive arguments so I wouldn't entirely suggest this either. If you run a progressive/LD-type argument, make them extremely clear.

Debate Etiquette: I can handle any speed, just make sure you enunciate. I flow completely on paper, so if you choose to spread please keep in mind I can only write so fast. Clearly state your impact at the very end of your response so it's the last thing I hear/it secures its spot on my flow. I like simple off-time roadmaps, such as "aff, neg, impacts" etc.

***I don't care for any rudeness, sarcasm, or dominating time during cross. I think it's really distasteful and I'll dock you speaking points. I start at 28 speaking points and adjust from there. Please have your stuff organized and share speech drops with each other prior to the round starting.

RFDs: I typically only include a brief RFD when I submit my ballot, but I try my best to give extensive feedback by the end of the tournament. I'm always open to questions at the end of the round if you'd like more explanation on anything.

Good luck and have fun!!! :)

James Wilson Lincoln North Star

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:03 AM CST

I debated in Public Forum for four years of high school and I’ve been judging for more than double that. I normally only judge Public Forum. If you wind up with me in any other event, something has gone horribly wrong and I’ll give any necessary variations on my paradigm in person.

Public Forum

I focus on evidence and argument over speaking. Speaking will never decide the round for me on a conscious level. However, I still expect good speaking skills. I can understand and flow a fairly fast rate of speech but actual speed reading will result in lower speaking scores and things missed on my flow.

Evidence is important to me. If you’re going to use a specific piece of evidence in the round, I expect you to be able to understand it and elaborate on it if asked. Additionally, I prefer you to rely on and reiterate a handful of cards rather than dozens of cards that are read once and then never reexplained again. I can follow an argument through a round and flow competently, but if you’re listing 25 things by author and year only, I’m going to lose track. Also, I want rationale for why your evidence is better than your opponent’s. “Prefer Johnson 2005” does nothing except leave all the weighing up to me and you do not want that.

I’m open to considering theoretical arguments over evidence, but it must be a very strong argument for me to consider doing so.

As as far as weighing mechanisms, definitions, observations, and the like, if you give them, I expect them to be used. If you read them to me and they’re irrelevant to the rest of your case, you’ve wasted everyone’s time. If your opponent gives any of the above, and does use them, I expect you to respond to them.

On a structural note, I don’t expect the first rebuttal speaker to rebuilt their own case unless something really important happened in cross examination. I do expect the second rebuttal to cover both sides. The summary speech and the final focus should be just that. Do not reiterate every single point from the whole round. Instead, pick a handful of the key issues and elaborate on why you’re winning those.

Lastly, if it does not happen in the round, I will not consider it in my decision. Teams making objectively bad, structurally flawed arguments have won ballots from me because their opponents did not address those bad, flawed arguments during the round itself.

If you have have any questions I’ll be glad to answer them before the round.

Christina Xu Lincoln East High School

Login to Tabroom

2023 Kaspar Cup at Millard South

2023 — Omaha, NE/US

PF judges Paradigm List

Judges