Here are the basics:

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round. I prefer you wait to do this until both teams are present, so everyone is on the same page.

I competed primarily in LD in Nebraska in the mid 1990s. So I'm probably a bit older than most judges. Since then I have been a volunteer speech and debate coach while in college, and a head coach of a more-or-less rural school in Nebraska. I've coached a variety of events and styles within those events with successful PF, LD, CX, and congress competitors. This is primarily LD-oriented. I haven't judged Policy in a long, long time.

Things that probably matter most to you as a debater if you see my name in your round:

I like creative, critical thinking based on relevant, topical literature.

I think debate should be about the resolution at hand. I have picked up teams/competitors who argue outside of the resolution, but those instances are rare and your argumentation, delivery, and rationalization as to why we should have a round about your content or method needs to be near flawless.

I prefer debates that deal substantively with the evidence and arguments that support each debater's position. Consequently, comparatively weighing impacts, evidence, frameworks, etc. is very important. If you don't do that in the round, I'll have to do it on my own and decisions then become a bit more arbitrary. Debaters who identify the primary areas of clash in a round, and tell me why they are winning those areas generally get my ballot. Tell me the story of your advocacy, and sell me on that story.

I used to not be a fan of running plans/counterplan, disads, or other policy style arguments, but the resolution styles and argumentation is becoming more clear here. I'm still not sure how a counterplan functions when there isn't a specific plan in the AC, though. In general, I default toward a tradition value/criterion structure and weigh the round through that lens. I don't think you have to win the framework to win the round; if you have access to the opponent's framework and your arguments impact better there, you win. Finally, I'm not very likely to vote for your argument that says my decision in this round is going to impact the world, the debate community, or other in round impacts. I enjoy a lot of the literature that surrounds K arguments; but framing it with an in-round impact isn't very persuasive to me. If you have a theory argument that your opponent is excluding you from the round for some reason, make sure you articulate that clearly. I believe that effective delivery means you communicate clearly and use effectively delivery strategy to emphasize what you believe is key to my decision.

In PF, the likelihood of my voting on a plan/counterplan position is pretty small. If you run one and your opponent argues that PF isn't the place for those, you'll probably lose the round at that point. Of course there is plenty of room for creatively constructing arguments on both sides of most resolutions -- so you should do that. Aside from that, I'm not a fan of soundbyte-y type arguments that seem to frequently appear in PF. I would like some clear arguments based on evidence and analyzed comparatively to your opponent's arguments. Show me where there is clash and tell why you win there.

Recently, I've spent more time working in tabrooms than judging. Please don't assume I'm familiar with your jargon. Also, since I don't judge as frequently, my pen time isn't what it used to be when I judged weekly.

Hello! I'm a third year NFA LD debater at UNL. I debated for 4 years in high school LD at Lincoln East, both on the local (NE) and nat circuit. Use speechdrop or add me to the email chain:fondue560@gmail.com. I've seen a wide variety of LD styles, and I can probably keep up with whatever you wanna do, so debate however you want to. In high school, I ran a lot of phil, a few ks, and stock and trad stuff. Now in college, I primarily run ks and policy-style arguments since NFA LD is pretty similar to one person policy. I have no preference on what you decide to run, as long as it's not offensive (debate is still supposed to be an educational activity). I decide the round based off of the flow, so focus your energy on winning that. I evaluate impacts based on whatever framework wins the round, so impact weighing definitely helps.

Short Pref:

Run what you run, as long as it's not trixs. Please. I have a really low threshold to responding to trixs and you will likely be disappointed with how I judge them.

Stock - can be done well, but can also be bland. go for it

Policy - Go for it.

K - Go for it. If you're running a non-T aff though, I expect you to be ready to argue you shouldn't have to be topical, but I'm cool with these.

Phil - Go for it. I ran a lot of this in high school, but I am a bit rusty on my phil now.

Speed

I can handle speed as long as you're clear. I don't flow off the doc, but if I can't understand you I will say speed/clear a couple of times if I can't flow you. If you don't slow down or enunciate more and I miss stuff, that's on you.

If you're hitting someone who can't handle speed, don't spread. If your opponent asks you to slow down, please do so.

Theory

Please don't run dumb shells! I'll vote on theory if you win it. I evaluate this based on what arguments are made in round. If there's no argument made for reasonability, I'll default to competing interps since it's easier to evaluate that way. But given the time skew in high school LD, there's strong arguments for reasonability.

There's some shells you're going to have a hard time winning in front of me. The one I see the most often is no 1AR theory. Generally, I typically end up evaluating the 1AR theory shell above this shell, since the impacts in those shells are much more fleshed out, and almost always outweigh the impacts in the no 1AR theory shell. If you read this shell in front of me, you're probably wasting your own speech time. I have yet to see someone run this shell with an impact that outweighs the impacts in the aff's shell. On a similar note, I don't need affs to read that they get 1AR theory in the AC.

I WILL vote on disclosure theory. This includes both on the wiki, and in round disclosure. If you don't know what the wiki is or how to use it, ask. There are a few valid reasons not to disclose on the wiki (ex: identity related arguments), but for the most part I believe disclosure is the best practice. If you aren't sharing speech docs in round, it won't be very hard for your opponent to win on theory. If you don't share speech docs in round and your opponent runs a disclosure shell, you should expect to lose my ballot unless you have a REALLY REALLY strong reason as to why you didn't. This is probably one of the only strong beliefs I hold about debate! I believe it's a super bad practice in debate to refuse to share the evidence you are reading with your opponent. If your cards are good and say what you say they say, you should have no problem with your opponent (and judges) to see your case.

T

T can be really, really powerful. If aff is obviously topical, I do think it's abusive to run a shell given the time skew in high school LD, but I'll still vote on it if you win it.

The format used for T and theory is usually pretty similar, so my stance on things like competing interps and reasonability is also pretty much the same.

If you're going for T, all 6 minutes of the 2N should probably be T in front of me.

K

Go for it. I've ran these periodically throughout my years as a debater, both topical and non topical. Non topical k affs are fine, but obviously run T against these. If you run a non topical aff, be prepared to respond to T. If you're non topical, I do think you should be able to defend being non topical. Have a clear link, impact, alt/advocacy, and role of the ballot to make my job easier.

Know your lit well enough to explain to me what I'm voting for. I want a clear picture of what the K is throughout the round. This means that having clear overviews would probably help you out, since these make it super, super clear what the K is about.

Some K rounds can get messy, especially when it's K v K. Please signpost. I like good line-by-line, but understand these are sometimes difficult in K rounds. Try to make your speeches as organized as you can while still communicating what I'm voting for.

DA/CP

DAs are cool. CPs are cool. Maybe don't be a debater that runs an excessive amount of offs, especially in LD, but ig if that's what you want to do, it's your round to decide the strat, not mine. If there's clearly an excessive amount (>5 for sure, but depends on the offs), theory is a viable aff strat against it. I'll do my best to vote off the flow though, so if you want to run a lot of offs, that's your decision.

Please try not to run offs that contradict each other.

Phil

I can usually understand phil pretty easily, so feel free to run whatever philosophy you want to. You do have to actually explain your phil though, even if it's one that I'm familiar with. Don't bank on me just knowing your arguments, even if it's one you know I've ran in the past. I haven't looked at a lot of the arguments I used to run since high school, so I'm a bit rusty on the authors I used to be really familiar with. I'll evaluate the round based on what's on the flow, so don't assume I know something if you don't say it in round. With phil rounds, I need to have a clear framework I'm voting under and clear impacts that flow under it.

Hello!

My name is Mary-kate, I use she/they pronouns. I did two years of LD debate in high school, (1yr for LSW and 1yr for LNS). I am currently a junior at UNL studying Philosophy and planning on going to grad school for Philosophy.

I like speech docs, my email is kati3boy@gmail.com or we can do a speech drop thing.

I'll probably remember most of the terminology/ advanced case types (like Ks, some counter-plans, some theory, etc..) you use, but if you think something could be out of my wheelhouse, mention it to me before round, and I will let you know what I know. :)

As far as what types of cases I prefer anything philosophy-based is right up my alley! Specifically, I do a lot of work on Kant + Phil Language/Phil Mind- but I have yet to ever see a debate case about the ladder two of those haha.

Unlike a lot of other judges, I don't care as much about the technicality of the round on the flow. It's obviously important to a certain extent, but I think it's a poor educational model to care about what arguments get “dropped” by an opposing team if they are bad and incoherent arguments. For example, if you present a framework of Kant's Categorical Imperative that simply doesn't function, I won't vote on it- even if your opponent doesn't have an answer to it. I should clarify what I mean by this--- it won't play a positive role in my decision to vote for you. Now, with that being said, I am not going to hold you to a crazy high standard on this front. I understand there are some limits to what you are able to learn as high-schoolers. But, this is all the more reason to bring philosophy into LD debate!

Framework debate is very important for me as a judge. Even in a case that doesn't use heavy philosophical warranting, your framework tells me why I should prefer any of the empirics or case-level arguments you have. I really don’t want to hear “My framework is utilitarianism, which says most good, most people. Prefer because most good is good. Onto contention one…” that would not be a fun round for me to judge, and it’s not very educational for debaters either. ***** In the complete absence of a framework/standard debate, I will flip a coin between consequentialism (heads) and deontology (tails); whichever side the coin lands on will be you and your opponents' framework for the round. Silly idea I know, but framework really is non-negotiable, and I have to frame the round through something. Please don't make me do this, just debate framework!********

Additionally on case level arguments, I think impact weighing is one of the best transferable skills LD debate has to offer; I hope you use it frequently in your rounds.

I don't care whether you debate the chosen topic, just give me a reason to divert from it.

I’m okay with spreading, but if I say “Clear!” that means I’m not okay and you need to slow down. Additionally, please be considerate to debaters with disabilities; always ask your opponent if it is okay to spread before the round. Moreover, if you happen to have a disability that needs accommodation within the debate, let me know, I will do whatever I can to create a fair space for you to debate.

One more miscellaneous note is my position on "post-rounding"- which doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore, but it was something that happened occasionally when I did debate-- and traditionally very frowned upon. For the purposes of the point I’m trying to make, I will define post-rounding as asking critical questions about my decision after I have given my RFD. I am more than okay with this and I would encourage you to do whatever is educationally required for your development as a debater and more importantly a critical thinker. I would hope you are respectful in your delivery with how you ask these questions, however, if you're upset with me I'm not going to tell you how to feel. Especially if something is just blatantly unclear to you, I want you to raise questions and objections to my thoughts if need be. I won't change my decision, but I will definitely do my best to give you an accurate depiction of my reasoning.

He/Him

E-Mail: quinncarlo024@gmail.com

MSHS Asst. Coach 2y, (Policy 3y, PF 1y)

ASL Interpreting major @UNO (1st language: English)

Debate is about the people and the experience, so be kind.

In my days I used to run trad left affs, and Cap Ks. I trust you'll help me understand whatever you run.

LD: LAST EDITED 2/23/2024 LD is about philosophy for me. I suppose that makes me trad now... I feel old.

FW: Winning FW means I will evaluate the round through that lens. FW is not an independent voter.

SPREADING: If you spread use SpeechDrop, AND DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS.

Ks: I've found that it is more difficult for me to buy a K AFF than anything else. That being said, I would love to engage in a discussion on K subject matters outside of the round.

• ROB: Vote for the better debater- to me means I’m looking at who cross-applied evidence well, who didn’t drop anything, who carried cards through their speeches, and other techy stuff.

THEORY: DON'T use theory as a means to win a ballot. Run theory if there is a genuine equity issue within the round.

• Disclosure Theory: If there is no in-round abuse (de-linking out of args), and/or your opponent gives you their case via SpeechDrop, I'm unlikely to vote for you.
• Spreading Theory: If your opponent asks before the round if they can spread and/or invites you to tell them to slow down, I'm unlikely to vote for you.

T: I am less likely to buy that the AFF needs to defend a specific plan as opposed to the general Value/Ethics of the Topic. Because LD is different from Policy.

→ Don't use other people's disadvantages to win you a ballot. Advocating for the rights of minorities as a majority can be fine if it is done in good faith, and you understand your case. If you are cishet advocating for the rights of queer people without knowing what it means, that's sketch.

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.

Hi! email: rodneyedwards402@gmail.com

Former School: Millard North High School (Omaha, Nebraska)

Competition Record: Competeted in LD, Congress and Extemp for 3 years. Qualified to nationals my senior year in the House.

Judging Record: Judged Congress at Nationals in Prelims and Sems. Judged local Nebraska PF and LD Circuit for 5 years.

Congress

-Direct clash is critical. You are not speaking in a vacuum.

-I don’t care about in-depth explanations about who you’re citing as long as you’re citing it truthfully and the warrant is there/true.

-Make your speeches interesting by actually telling me something new or important.

PF

I'm pretty comfortable in just about any round. I'm open to voting for unorthodox arguments, as long as they're fleshed out and weighed well. Weighing your arguments should be your go to in front of me. Speed shouldn't be an issue. If there is an evidence issue, address it in the round. I'm not morally opposed to theory in PF, but it better actually be abusive.

LD

I'm pretty familiar overall with the format and argumentation styles. (Theory, T, Phil, CP's...) Try not to get hyper-specific with any jargon. Please send me docs and tell me if you didn't read certain cards. I enjoy hearing interesting philosophical arguments, and I don't like tricks. I'm open to different types of arguments as long as you explain well what the role of the ballot is supposed to be. I default to a "competiting worlds" paradigm. If you want me to vote for something, tell me and argue why. I'll usually always disclose. If there is any likely tech issue, try to inform me before the round if possible, but I will be understanding if something happens in round.

If something's not addressed here, feel free to ask before the round!

Experience:

I debated PF for two years and dabbled in Congress when I could, all using Nebraska rules

General Information:

I can handle a decent amount of speed just be clear on your wording, make sure everyone can understand what you are saying

Please don’t be hurtful in the round, we are all old enough to know how to treat each other, I don't foresee this being an issue so please don’t make it one

Signpost, just let me know what you are going to talk about and in what order you will ahead of time, it helps me flow better

Evidence reliability, if I find that you were misrepresenting data I will be more inclined to vote for the other team, if you lie about data I will weigh that against you, people please be fair

If you have any questions about how I judge don’t hesitate to ask

PF Judging:

I am more traditional when it comes to judging PF, the most important thing you can do for me is to pull through all the information you want to use, if an Item is dropped and you try to bring it up again I will not flow it, it is okay to drop something if you want to collapse the debate and make it more focused but do not bring it up again if it is dropped

Weigh arguments, it helps me come to a conclusion, long term impacts are a huge seller for me

Frameworks, a framework is not required although if one is given I will use it unless it is dropped or the other team gives me a reason not to use it, I will default to a cost-benefit

I do not weigh questioning unless it is brought up in round

Congress:

The presentation can be important but I will weigh more heavily on arguments and responses during questioning

I like more out of the box arguments, make it applicable to the legislation but take a different perspective on it, make it convincing and I’m inclined to listen more

Updated 13 February 2023 for Milo Cup at Millard North.

IMPORTANT THING:

I am back from pretty much two years of not judging at all, except for like one or two online tournaments. Topic knowledge is (still) almost zilch. Explain things like I’m a literal child. Speak slow-ish and clear.

For PF: I have judged one PF round ever but they are putting me in the pool at Milo, so the basics is to approach me like you would approach any policy or LD judge. That's what I am and that's how I evaluate rounds, mostly. Read on if you're interested in more specifics.

ok, now back to our regular programming.

TL;DR: do you, this isn’t my activity, it’s yours. With very limited exceptions, I’ll listen to and evaluate just about anything as long as you tell me what I should be evaluating and how. The most important thing you can do for me is spend 30 seconds at the top or bottom of your last speech telling me what my ballot should read. The rest, as they say, is up to you.

I am also disabled. I had two eye surgeries in 3 years and still cannot quite read the way I was able to in school. This means I a) need to be on the email chain, speechdrop, or whatever, and b) need you to not spread nearly as much. If you’re usually an 8 or 9 out of 10 for speed, go like a 5 or maximum a 6 ESPECIALLY on pre-written analytics and tags. Some speed is fine but it’s your fault if I don’t flow you and if it’s not on my flow it won’t be on my ballot. I don't like saying "clear" so I won't unless you are literally impossible to understand - it's really on you to make sure I'm getting everything you want me to get.

Conflicts:I went to Lincoln High (NE) and coached for a year at St Louis Park (MN). Currently unaffiliated.

Wait, who?

I’m Aedan! I did policy debate from 2012-16 at Lincoln High School in Nebraska, and after that I coached LD at St. Louis Park, did mock trial at Macalester College, and have judged occasionally at tournaments in Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.I was a 1A/2N for most of my career, and I mostly went for the K vs policy affs and framework vs K affs. I’m also fluent in German and lived for a while in Austria which is cool I guess.

The golden rule of debating in front of me:

Debate like I’m lazy, stupid, and mean. I am none of those things (at least I think so), but I have a very high threshold for argument explanation and contextualization and a very low tolerance for creating clash where none exists. I do not intervene unless it is absolutely necessary. You tell me how to vote and why in a way that someone who doesn’t know much about debate could understand. Wanna practice this? Go explain your case to your parents or friends who don’t do debate. It’s that simple.

Other important things:

Email chain: yes put me on it. aedanmh@gmail.com. Please and thank you. I am now aware that speechdrop exists - if you use that I'd love the code.

My pronouns are he/they. Feel free to tell me your pronouns if you like but I won't ask for them.

I’m a pretty good judge for wack arguments. I did policy debate in Nebraska at a certain time. Whatever you run, I’ve probably seen/run/voted on something weirder. Dedev, Nietzsche, and global/local were my bread and butter as a 2N. As was T vs K affs. :P

But I’ll pull the trigger on T or nuclear war just as quickly if it wins the debate. You can't expect to win on fight club or the ice age DA just because you saw me in the back of the room. I don’t hack for wack. I just believe in giving wack a chance.

Same goes for theory and super dense phil etc in LD. A good phil debate is really fun to judge though, same with a good theory debate. LDers are way better at these than policy debaters ever were in my experience.

Tricks: I’ll vote on them, but I don’t vote on cheap shots and I will gut check at the first utterance of the word. If you're going to win on a trick you have to make sure it is set up appropriately with definitions and explanations of burden of proof etc. "Vote for me because the sky is blue" or "there are infinite worlds and in some of them the rez is true" don't work without this setup.

I don’t flow CX, but a good CX that makes me look up from my laptop will make me happy and you will likely be happy(er) with your speaker points.

Speaks: 26-30, 28 is what I consider to be average. Better than 28.5 means I think you should break, better than 29.5 means I'll be shocked if you don't win the tournament or at least make a very deep run. I try to adjust my speaks based on the tournament i.e. I'm more of a stickler the more bids are available and/or the bigger the tournament is.

Here’s what happens if you are offensive to your opponent, clip cards, are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc: I will stop the round. I will drop you with the lowest speaker points the tournament allows. I’ll make sure the tournament directors and your coaches are aware of what happened, and I’ll take any additional actions that are required of me. Just don’t do it.

On the subject of Ks vs T or LARP/Policy v K debates generally:

This gets its own section because I judge a lot of these debates and these debaters tend to be the ones to pref me when prefs exist. This is a good thing because this is my favorite kind of debate to judge. I opted into these debates frequently as a debater and I think talking about what debate should look like is one of the most productive things we can do in terms of the "education" arguments that get flung around.

That said, I do have a slight bias toward cases or interps that at least ask the affirmative to at least take some sort of affirmative stance on the resolution. That can be interpreted however you like, and I can easily be convinced otherwise, but given my background I feel this should be expected. If I am given explicit reasons to reject this viewpoint I'm more than willing to do so.

If you're LARPing (or reading T), though, you should be prepared to defend the implications of your advocacy. Just as the specificity of the link matters, so too do the specificity of the answers and defenses of one's implications. LARP is cool, I did policy, I can handle LARP, but just because I default to us debating about the resolution and am semi-persuaded by "fiat good" doesn't mean you get to ignore prefiat implications and read generic answers to whatever you think your opponent is reading. The better LARPers and T debaters are at answering exactly what their opponent is arguing, the more likely I am to vote on those subjects. My bias toward "resolution is good/fiat is good" does not extend nearly far enough for anyone to claim I hack for such debaters.

For the K debater, the same applies because you NEED to know what you're reading. I confess to being occasionally guilty of this myself in high school; I loved a spicy meatball and sometimes read things I only half-understood. Remember what I said above about lazy, stupid, and mean? I got that from one of my philosophy professors and this is where that applies the most. I'm not going to do extra work for you so you need to take extra time and make sure I know what you're arguing in extremely simple terms. I often will understand what you're saying due to my background, but there are many times where you will lose me. Axe the jargon, speak to me in language your non-debater friends and family could understand, and be a better debater than I was. Do your homework, take some time to understand your literature, and you'll go far in front of me.

Last:

Please share your musical tastes with me. Currently playing: Bad Bad Hats, Peter Fox, and a lot of music I found on tiktok. Maisie Peters, Knox, Isabel Pless, Loveless, and many more. I am also a huge swiftie. #1 on spotify wrapped every year since I can remember except like one.

If there's anything that's not on here that you want to know about, please ask. I always appreciate questions and in fact am likely to engage in some sort of conversation before the round starts.

:)

Email: jehenson00@gmail.com but I prefer speech drop

Background: I competed at Lincoln North Star in LD for all four years. I qualified to the TOC my junior year, and NSDA nationals my sophomore and senior. I’m now doing NFA-LD at UNL.

As a debater, I mainly went for identity K’s. I read a lot of different authors like Schotten, Puar, Muñoz, and Halberstam.

Tech > Truth

TLDR: Truly you can read anything you want, while I have my preferences I will evaluate the flow and vote on anything as long as it isn’t violent.

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any kind of ism or phobic. I will drop you if I feel the space has become unsafe. Meet any accommodations your opponent asks for.

Disclosure is good in the debate space and I will vote on disclosure theory.

Speed: It’s fine as long as you’re clear and slow down as tags.

Policy: Go for it. If you can read impact turns I really enjoy those.

Phil: I have some experience in more traditional phil (Rawls, Hobbes & Locke, Kant) and I really enjoy watching these debates. I don’t want them to boil down to tricks and different skep triggers.

Tricks: I would say you could run well-warranted tricks but those don’t exist. Tricks aren’t cute, just don’t.

T/Theory: Go for it, I really enjoy a good T debate. I default to competing interps.

K’s: I really enjoy K debate, however, don’t assume I know your lit. I can’t vote for anything I don’t understand, and it usually becomes obvious during cross if you know what you're talking about. I’m most familiar with queerness, fem, setcol, and ableism.

K Aff’s: I love non-topical affs. The one thing I would say is you're probably not going win your fair, I believe it's better to just go for impact turns but I’ll evaluate anything on the flow. I think that framework is a strong argument against K aff’s and will vote on it if well articulated.

LDers on the nat circuit: Sorry if you have to have me as a judge. I vastly prefer to stay in policy land because I am a judge that wants effective spreading and in-depth analysis rather than mumbled analytics/tags with no clear labeling and blippy arguments from people doing a cosplay of bad Policy. So in other words, I like everything that circuit LD seems to be allergic to right now. But my team needs their obligation covered so here I am. So read my paradigm and adapt or deal with my rant about how annoying circuit LD is.

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 or past 2NRs (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

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): 6 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 4 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)

In short, the order I resolved arguments**

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

**Note: I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should. See below ofr a detailed break down of this ordering.

The most important specifics:

• A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand thatspeed should never come at the expense of clarity. I low key hate judging circuit LD due to this inability to spread well. 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 any argument and especially theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, it'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 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.

• 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.

Not so short explanation of how I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

-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).

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.

she/her/hers

Former Millard West LD coach. Leans trad. Likes phil. I'm okay with other stuff usually. You can always ask.

-

I do not vote on disclosure, but I will vote on predictability if the case is not on the wiki.

-

I dont like it if you have the same case for both sides.

-

For speed, I start to cap out at 350 wpm. Sharing cases is good for evidentiary reasons. I'd prefer not to do an email chain.

-

In the case I have to judge outside of LD, please just treat me like a parent judge. I'm a truly terrible PF judge and an acceptable congress judge. Never seen policy.

NEBRASKANS: if you show mereasonable proof before round that you've read indexicals in two rounds this TOPIC at local tournaments, I'll give you+0.5 speaks than I otherwise would have.(One of the rounds cannot have been in front of me).

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

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

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

My Debate background:

I debated at Millard North for four years. I (unfortunately)did two years of policy and (fortunately) two years of LD. I was a flex debater running a variety of Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.

Currently coaching LD at Millard North, it is my fourth year of coaching.

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Policy- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to, unless told otherwise (It's unlikely that I'll intervene and use one of these default beliefs I hold, unless I absolutely have to in order to resolve the round):

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility and Presumption negate.

perm = test of competition>advocacy

Norm setting > In Round Abuse

No RVIs(I think it requires proactively justifying.)

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

I tend to give pretty high speaks. I base speaks on the efficiency and quality of your arguments, I don't care about eloquence so long as I can understand you.

Be nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive.

Event Specific:

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

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

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

T/Theory: You can see some of the general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are the lens I use to evaluate the theory debate (entailing they are also why I care about theory, and presumably will play a role in weighing why I should evaluate procedural offense before other things, i.e. offense under a role of the ballot) and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you weigh between your arguments and that you don't just repeat them verbatim in the rebuttals, and then expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (Yes policy kids, I am okay with you debating over paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI, etc.)

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

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

PF- I never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism that I can use to weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand so that you can sufficiently warrant and implicate it out.

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

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes, AI) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide: full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, full URL, for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format.HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be dropped. I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how; I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will not be very lenient for this. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier. I've especially noticed the more pedantic impact/internal links/interps/etc. the less likely I am to give it a bunch of weight.

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo isusually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key. I haven't judged PF and I competed in it once over 4 years ago so womp womp)

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA + case sections)

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2024

Summary:

I'm familiar with "basic" debate rules, and unlikely to know much beyond that. I would greatly appreciate it if you conduct the round according to these "basic" rules. You are free to ignore this, but please explain what your rules are if you do.

I want this to be an exercise in topic research and argumentation. If you want to win my vote on a resolution about topic XYZ, ask "What would a person working in field XYZ know, that my opponent won't, and how does that support my side of the resolution?" and present that in the round. To go another level, ask "What information would be missing from a preliminary ChatGPT response?" and include that as well. If the topic involves engineering, read up on engineering. If the topic is public finance, read up on public finance. I'm not an expert on any of these topics, but I want to think you are!

I am strongly inclined to vote against priori arguments ignoring or attacking the resolution - Ks, performance affs, etc., when the link to the case is "You didn't discuss my K". I am strongly inclined to vote against "role of ballot" arguments. You are free to ignore this and tell me why this approach is wrong, but I can only explain myself on this paradigm and my RFD.

Relevant facts are great. I like well-reasoned evidence, but I hope your clash on argumentation and framework trumps questions of evidence quality. I won't ask for your evidence, but if you give it to me, I will tell you if I think it's poor quality and your opponent can score points by identifying weak cards. Assuming you and your opponent are evenly matched on evidence, I will vote for the team that does the best job of presenting detailed, topical, and logically consistent arguments.

Speaking eloquently is great. I can't flow spreading terribly well, and would prefer you didn't do it. I won't instantly vote against you if you do, although your speaker points will be lower than if you didn't, particularly if your opponent cannot follow. The arguments I can hear are the ones I expect your opponent to respond to. My speaker point assignments might not make sense. I am sorry for this, I mean no harm!

Policy: I promise to be a stock issues judge that values knowledge about the topic.

Lincoln Douglas: I want to vote for the side that picks a value and sticks to it, argues why their value + framework is better, and shows they meet their own criterion. If you run a case or CP, I guess policy rules apply, but why not do LD instead? Accept your opponent's value if you really need to, and then show you best uphold their value. Still, if you have a good value, go for the total win.

Public Forum: I promise to value knowledge of the topic and the quality of argumentation.

Further clarifications and potential tips on how to win my vote below.

Best of luck in your rounds and your pursuit of excellence.

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

Overall:

I prefer case + stock issues debates for policy (with ADs/DAs perfectly fine as well), value/criterion clash in LD with deeper research on a few key points, and researched, eloquent, on-topic arguments in PF. This is what I can judge the best. Assume I do not know any debate jargon, with exceptions for very basic rules. Explain your arguments in simplest terms, and I will do my best to follow along. I probably don't know your sources, literature, etc.

If you are going to do something outside the "boilerplate" make a strong argument and explain it in simplest terms. My knowledge of debate-the-game is going to be pretty small compared to yours, if you are making these arguments. That's ok, just make sure to explain your game.

Advocacy/Kritik/Etc.:

I have some strong preferences about what types of kritiks and similar a priori arguments run in round,and I am highly unlikely to consider things other than how you defended your side of the resolution/counter the aff. A priori arguments often attempt to discourage this, but I think this abandons much of the value of the round.

I view the round as an exercise for you and your opponent in doing topic research and presenting it. Hypothetically the debate could be about any topic. For the purpose of making evidence available, prep possible, competition fair, and judge knowledge more than non-existent, we've got what we have. Kritiks, performance affs, etc. either imply or explicitly state that the intended exercise using the resolution is worth less than the K. So long as your K is related to policy, values, etc., you're ok, but I think the exercise is worth quite a bit. A bunch of related arguments about fairness and real-world impact flow from this belief. I don't feel like I need to hear your opponent say them for you to know them, especially if you read this paradigm.

Does this mean I will instant-downvote and drop your speaker points if you run a K? No, it just means you have a ton of work do to just to get me to be onboard and strategically it is almost certainly not worth your time. You'd be better running this as some sort of unusual plan/counterplan/values debate. Doing that avoids telling me my valuation of judging is wrong, it avoids weird situations where you accuse your opponent of being guilty of some harm just for showing up, and it avoids me having to figure out whether we are talking about the hypothetical world of the round or the real world where we all go home at the end of the day. If you feel like you can thread all of those needles, feel free to run a K if your heart desires.

Having read all of this, know that telling me the role of my ballot is essentially just putting your whole round up for a y/n vote and I am likely to vote no. I've already stated what I'd want the role of my ballot to be - evaluating your research, argumentation and presentation compared to your opponent. This is true even if you and your opponent start debating what my role as judge is. This is true even if you and your opponent agree on what my role is. If you call me an educator, toss a definition of educator in, and say I have to follow that definition, I disagree, probably with both your definition and the need to educate your opponent on whatever charges you are bringing! You can call this a bias, you can call it lay judging. You can try to convince me I am wrong about my perceived role and the value it adds mid-round! However, know that this means you're debating all the stuff written above, and not your opponent. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't get to give a speech, and I don't want to blindside you if I tell you what I think my role is in the RFD. Hence, this whole section.

Argumentation:

I hope to vote for the team with the most logically consistent arguments. In advancing a new argument or rebutting your opponent, you should not unwittingly contradict yourself! For example, if you say that delaying your case would cause immeasurable misery and extinction, and your opponent says we need to delay implementation for reason XYZ, you shouldn't suddenly pivot to a gradual implementation of your case without acknowledging the contradiction! Either cede one side and defend the other, explain the contingency, or say "at the margin we can delay without accruing the worst of the harms." All of these outs are fine by me, and then it's up to your opponent to figure out the best response.

I dislike judging two contradictory arguments from a single side. If your opponent points out the contradiction, they will likely win the point. But let's say they don't, and just attack both sides without noticing the contradiction. Which version of your argument am I supposed to believe? Are we going with what's said later in the speech? Your opponent's arguments will likely also contradict, which means even if they win the point on one side, shouldn't they lose the other? This type of situation makes judging difficult, and makes my vote much more likely to hinge on smaller details.

I'd prefer reasoned impacts with great links, rather than colossal impacts with unreasonable links/brinks. If you say "My opponent's plan kills everyone tomorrow" I will not immediately vote on impact, please show a good link. An obviously tenuous link to nuclear extinction will likely not win my vote on its own, especially if your opponent says "The link from our plan to nuclear extinction is obviously rather tenuous." If they instead counter with "without our plan, there will be nuclear war", you have yourself a ballgame, but I'd really prefer to see you know the topic.

What this means for your round: Signpost, make sure your arguments don't contradict one another. If you catch your opponent in a contradiction, don't feel like you have to disprove both sides. Simply point out the contradiction! Quality over quantity, one extremely plausible disad will mean more to me than ten wildly implausible disads.

Evidence:

Appeals to authority will have some sway because it's highly unlikely I can evaluate the quality of your evidence. A widely-known fact accepted by everyone on Earth is better than a research paper is better than a news article is better than a rumor you heard from some guy one time. That being said, if you say a specific statistic as evidence of a claim, please attribute the claim to at least some guy.

It's very difficult to evaluate one evidence card over another past a certain threshold. I'd hate for "clash" to boil down to me deciding who picked a better source. I'm not reading these articles, but hopefully you know the ins and outs of your sources, and can provide specific counters to your opponents' claims, either from the source itself or from an argument you concoct. If a card from your opponent seems wildly wrong, please say so. I will do my best not to argue with anyone in round but if your opponent's card is egregious and absurd, please say "It seems like this card is egregious and absurd" rather than taking it at face value. If you take it face value I will likely have to do so too. Better evidence cards usually have a more comprehensive framework behind them, so feel free to lean into that framework so long as you don't compromise your case while doing so.

I almost certainly won't ask for your evidence. If you use SpeechDrop, I will read the fine print. If your card's fine print completely contradicts your point, and your opponent catches this, I will likely consider it a point in their favor. If your opponent points out that you've cited an op-ed written by a stranger on the street, I will consider it a point in their favor. This doesn't mean you shouldn't use SpeechDrop. It means your evidence should be accurately portrayed in your speech and above the caliber of an op-ed.

What this means for your round: Providing a reason why your argument holds up is preferred to saying your citation is just better, even if your citation is just better. However, if you use SpeechDrop, it becomes much easier for your opponent to question the quality of your evidence.

Speaking:

Focus on your arguments first, but then make them sound as eloquent as you can. I can flow quickly enough, but if you pride yourself on your spreading, I probably can't flow you. This doesn't mean you can't do it, but it will make it difficult for me to judge the round. If you spread, perhaps slow down on your most important arguments, and be prepared for me to do a poor job of following the rest. I won't hold it against your opponents if they are unable to address arguments I cannot hear myself. If I am unable to follow along due to speed, I will raise my pen to let you know, or say "clear" as that appears to be the circuit norm.

If my speaker points are lower than you expected please don't take it too harshly or think it means I thought you were terrible. I don't know the circuit norms very well and these things are relative. I once received a 17 speaker points (and won the round!) so please know that I am not attempting to tank you specifically if your points are low.(I assume those receiving high points will ask no further questions, but if you get 30 points from me and lower points elsewhere, still consider what you can do to pick up those other ballots!) If have any serious concerns I will put that in on your private comments in-ballot, but I consider this highly unlikely.

Notes on Specific Events:

Lincoln-Douglas:

I am not very familiar with LD debates, so please feel free to re-iterate the rules as you speak.

I am hoping to see clash on values and criterion in the context of the resolution, and not a case debate. If the aff leans on case, or the neg suggests a bunch of stuff beyond the resolution, I will default to policy rules on the case and counterplan, including that the negative case/counterplan be mutually exclusive, but that's a smaller part of the whole round. Please focus elsewhere.

Evidence and empirical examples are great. However, assuming there's ample evidence for both sides, I'd prefer you get to debating values and criterion. Specific empirical arguments can be really strong, but turning your opponent's example is as good as a single example can be. Proving your value is better than theirs means I am probably going to evaluate everything in the round favorably for you!

What this means for your round: Once you start telling a story, keep telling it. I might not know your value or your literature, but I am along for the ride! Explain your value to me in simple terms and why it is the better value. On the other hand, if you seamlessly fold some of your criteria into your opponent's value, jettison the criteria that only fit your frame, and never weigh values, I am likely going to prefer your opponent's framework! If you argue "Even if you prefer their value framework I win on criteria" that's fine too. However, leaving the value debate as an open question, or simply handing over the value is a huge strategic error, assuming you picked a decent value. My ideal round is two teams with clearly defined values trying to turn specific arguments and linking those turns to framework. My least-ideal round is two teams doing rushed policy debate while ditching values completely, or using them interchangeably at the end of the round.

I'd be much more open to Kritiks here than in policy, but it's difficult to imagine why you wouldn't just wrap this into a normal values debate. Please pick at the words/framing of the resolution, the best way to interpret the resolution, and the values involved in the resolution. Just please don't abandon the resolution.

Policy:

Affirmative team will need to present a topical case, show an inherent barrier to implementing the plan, and then show harms that their plan solves for. Please feel free to prevent harms solved as advantages, opportunity costs are real and bad, but don't ignore stock issues!

Negative team will need to win a stock issue, or show disadvantages, or run a counterplan. Although I am only somewhat familiar with counterplans, I will listen to them, but you'd need to remind me of the rules in the round. If you're going to run a counterplan, it had better be mutually exclusive.

Public Forum:

I am new to judging the event, but this is who the event is for, so you should be fine. Topic knowledge and quality argumentation will be all you need.

Hi :)

General Info:

-I use she/her pronouns

-I want to be on the email chain ( email is delanie.n0214@gmail.com)

-I debated for Millard North High School 2018-2021, I ran both policy and kritical arguments, I have a slightly more than a basic understanding of Bataille, Puar, Preciado, Derrida, most cap arguments, and set col

-I study political science at UNL and currently coach policy at Millard North

- I don't care if you sit, stand, walk, or look at the wall when you speak

- Please be kind.

- if I am judging your LD round- I am fine with any kind of debate- LARP or otherwise- I'll listen to whatever you read in front of me

- if I am judging your PF round- I think PF is generally way underdeveloped in argumentation, that being said, please PLEASE have substantive clash in your rounds, especially in relation to evidence

TLDR:

-Read what you like, debate well and respectfully

My preferences:

- I have an extremely high burden for evidence, if you do not have a warranted piece of evidence attached to your argument at the end of the round and your opponent does- I will default to the evidence every single time. this means you need to extend your evidence well- explain your evidence and contextualize it- you can read as many cards as you'd like but if the text of the card doesn't say what you're saying it does I will have trouble buying your argument.

-Tech > truth almost always

-Do not assume I will read your evidence unless you tell me to and why (if you have a fantastic piece of evidence that answers every single argument your opponent is making, tell me how. Don't just tell me to extend it.)

-PLEASE extend author names when you extend a card (not only author name, but please put it in there) but if I don't know what card you're referencing (especially if you have multiple cards that basically say the same thing), I can't evaluate it, and tend to buy responses when it is answered by your opponent.

-POLICY AFF: If you do not garner solvency or do anything due to your case ( performance, etc.), it will be hard for me to vote for you. Defend your solvency or prove you do something.

-I love Kritical arguments, but I need an extremely clear path to solvency to buy your argument.

- Tagteam cross ex is fine

- I frequently give advice for future arguments in my RFD. If you do not want that, let me know, I will not be offended.

- I will and have (more frequently than I would like) vote(d) neg on presumption,at the end of the round, if I have no reason to believe that the affirmative does anything other than the squo ( or worse), I will vote on presumption.

- don't steal prep; emailing/flashing is not prep

-condo is not my fav, but I won't outright reject it.

-I love a good theory argument; you need to flesh out the impact.

-T is a fun and good time, but I need the impact of a nontopical case.

- Speed is fine, read as fast as you want, i'll clear you

-DisAds: I need specific links, but I'm willing to vote on a link of omission if I'm given a reason to.

-Debate is a game, but I don't think cheaters should always lose. Always following the rules of debate takes away the fun. Tell me why cheaters should lose.

-Trigger warnings and generally not okay behavior: if you have a case that involves sensitive material in any form, you should add a trigger warning. If you choose to add a trigger warning, you need another option for a case if the material triggers someone. If you fail to provide another option, you will concede the round. I will not allow you to make this space unsafe for anyone. That being said, if you misgender someone and/or are racist/ sexist/ homophobic /transphobic /general bigotry, I will stop the round, vote you down, and tank your speaks. Quite frankly, I'm tired of extremely rude behavior being allowed in debate, and for debaters to have to fight to be treated with kindness and empathy, I will not submit to the current narrative.

Speaker points:

I generally think speaker points are a terrible way of determining success; my rules are:

30 - I think you should win this tournament

29-29.9- little to no criticism

28-28.9- few strategic issues

27-27.9- more than a few issues or multiple critical errors

26 or lower- you owe someone an apology

I default to 28 for the loser and 28.5 for the winner unless I feel compelled to think about it harder.

Bottom line:

-Do whatever you're comfortable with and do it well. If you don't make an effort to get better, you're wasting everyone's time

jessodebato@gmail.com

They/She

Speech drop or Email

Experience:I participated in policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD), mainly reading phil and the k.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over Truth. I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to. Any argument with a warrant is an argument, regardless if I agree with it. Don't be sexist, racist, ableist (etc.) in round.

Speed is fine,I try to flow off the speech rather than the doc. Please don't zoom through analytics.

1 = pref me; 5 = strike me

K = 1

I love a K debate that is explained well, don't word salad. LBL>Long overview

cool w/ any lit base, but won't fill in explanations

I evaluate the K through whatever framing is given. Then I look to how the K interacts with the aff (turn, serial policy failure, etc).

cool w/ reps k's

Going for the alt isn't necessary. you can kick a cp and go for the da; you can kick the alt and go for links and fw.

If you go for the alt, it has to either: a) resolve the links or/and b) solve the aff.

K Affs= 1

I love K-affs,but I've equally voted for negative strategies that interacted with or explained the aff's theory of power better. It's not about what argument you've made, but rather how it interacts with your opponents.

K affs aren't different from "normal" debate: give me an impact that I can vote on, whether you are doing performance or reading heavy POMO.

TFW: I'm 50/50, not biased towards either: Tell me why fairness isn't an impact or tell me why fairness outweighs the k-aff's pedagogical benefits

LARP = 1

impact calc is important to my decision in these debates

Plan affs are fine

Counterplans are cool. The CP is just an opportunity cost da; tell me either how it solves some of case and produces a net benefit elsewhere or how it avoids some DA that outweighs the case.

- will judge kick the cp

- if you are using the CP to solve some of case, do the work of explaining how

Phil = 1

single standards are fine, don't think any meaningful clash happens in value-value debates

open to variety of non-consequentialist theories, but explain the implications of you winning framing

warrant explanations are especially important here, don't dump tag re-reads.

Theory = 2

don't be blippy

if you go for theory, collapse. I find that a 1 min abuse story in the last rebuttal is often unsubstantiated

eval theory through offense/defense

competing interp>reasonability

norms>actual abuse

friv theory is fine, but i'd prefer theory rooted in some substantive portion of debate, rather than germane norms like clothing. good = cp theory, topicality, plan-bad, alt theory, disclosure, x arg is violent for debate, 3-tier, etc

not preferred = chess, shoe, mask theory

Trix = 5

Trix = one line blips that auto-affirm/negate. They are not warranted and developed. I think this is distinct from skep or determinism which are more philosophically justified and warranted.

Just win a debate normally; strike me

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

Hi all! My name is Loc Nguyen (he/him/his) and I am a junior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in Computer Science & Math.

--

Experience:

I competed in Public Forum Debate at Lincoln Southwest High School from 2018-2022. I was the 2022 Nebraska State Champion in PF. Now I currently compete in NFA-LD (and some NDT/CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I'm currently assistant coaching at Lincoln Southwest.

--

IMPORTANT:

The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and a backup case or contention. I am okay with most arguments, but be mindful of your opponents.

--

General:

Top-Shelf: I view debate as a game and my job is to evaluate who wins the game. I am normally tech over truth, however, I'm pretty stupid most of the time so judge instruction is key. I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implication. Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision.

--

Evidence Exchanges:

I think debaters need to do some form of evidence exchange; I've sat through enough rounds of evidence ethics violations. Please send speech docs before you speak and, at a minimum, send all pieces of evidence you plan on introducing in your speech AND make sure that your cards are actually cut. I personally prefer SpeechDrop over email chains. If we have to do an email chain, the subject of the email should have the following format, or something close to it: "Tournament Name - Round # Flight A/B - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)" Please add nlocdebate@gmail.com to the email chain.

--

PF:

Rebuttal: Number your responses, they're pretty helpful. Second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses.

Summary/Final Focus: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments over mass card dumping). Defense isn't sticky; you have to extend it in first summary and I'll flow the responses through, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about; extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Please weigh and weigh comparatively. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary.

Prep: You must take prep time if you are reading or calling for evidence.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, however, that doesn't mean I always enjoy fast rounds. I won’t be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear.

"Progressive" PF:

1) Theory: I believe theory has its place in debate. My general thoughts are that disclosure is good as well as open-sourcing and paraphrasing is bad. Semantics are up to you all.

2) K's: I'll be willing to listen to them in PF, however, time constraints in PF would probably limit you from engaging in good K debate. Err on the side of over-explanation, I probably don't know your literature.

--

LD:

Pref Sheet

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 2.5

Phil - 4

Tricks - Strike

I occasionally judge high school LD, but I don't coach LD. Don’t expect me to always be up to date on circuit norms since I don't judge the event frequently. Defer (mostly) to my PF paradigm if you want to get more of a sense of how I’ll probably evaluate the round, but I’ll be receptive to whatever. In high school I was exposed to a lot more traditional LD from my teammates, but my competition experience in NFA and NDT leans policy. Take that as you will. That being said, I’m willing to listen to anything as long as it’s well warranted and implicated and explained well enough for me to vote on it. If I don’t understand it well enough to vote on it, I won’t.

--

If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me at nlocdebate@gmail.com before and after tournaments, and I would be happy to answer them.

Hi my name is Arjun(they/them); arjdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

-Millard North '23; UNL '27

-I don't think about debate a lot, chances are my topic knowledge is negative. Be clear, and clarify the acronyms please and thank you.

-LD/Policy

-3 Years of Debate: 3 LD, 1 Policy {3rd year was mixed} I'm very flex when it comes to speeches --- I have given all possible speeches from the 1A to the 2NR.

-I debate in college sometimes.

Use this as the subject line of your email chains please:

Tournament Name-Round Number-AFF Team vs NEG Team
Example: Shirley-Round 2-Northwestern CE vs Georgetown KL

--------- Pref Shortcut [LD] -----------

1: Policy, K

2: T

3: Phil [This is solely because of how people explain/utilize phil in debate---I'm well versed in philosophy and will be annoyed if deployed wrong. The bar will be high for explanation.]

4: Trix (I do not dislike tricks if they are creative or executed well. I will vote on them, however these debates are often just blipstorms that end up being really messy. I just don't think they're strategic or good arguments)

4: Trad. (I do not enjoy these debates but I am competent at evaluating such arguments).

I default Util,No RVI,Competing Interps,P&P NEG.

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

------Policy------------

Similar to LD. I'm good for evaluating almost anything. Consider me to be more accepting of theory arguments. Scroll to see my dispositions and opinions for certain arguments like Ks, etc.

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

--The more I'm involved with this activity, the more I'm intrigued by the educational value this activity presents. I'm a huge researcher, I believe in the process of research and iterative testing, and so I will strive to preserve the pedagogical benefit of this activity. I recognize that every debater puts in a lot of hard work and effort into debate, and I will try my best to reciprocate when judging you. I will generally take a long time to come to a decision even if it is not a close round, don't take it too personally.

General Overview

-If I'm on your panel feel free to kick me and go for the other judges' ballots.

-Wasn't on my flow = wasn't spoken. Be clear, I will not look back and I will not read evidence for you unless instructed otherwise. Slow on tags, and slow on analytics. Send analytics if you plan on blitzing through a block of them. Don't be a coward.

-Will judge your speech docs. Aesthetic documents and good organizing will be rewarded. Bad docs won't be punished but will defo make me cringe/annoyed at worst. Please use word, don't use docs or PDF.

-Again, it's kinda sad that I have to say this, but DON'T make args that make the debate space unsafe. I will literally drop you so fast if I think you are being racist/sexist/queerphobic and all those bad things and end all your hopes of winning a speaker award with that too.DO NOT IMPACT TURN COLONIALISM. I will intervene and demand an explanation. Please use your common sense regarding what parts of Ks to turn. (Y'all think this is a joke I'm being serious I have seen this happening)

-I recognize that there is no tab judge and all judges have their biases but i will try my best to keep those aside.

-A pet peeve of mine is talking over someone when its not your cx.If it is not your CX, don't start it or talk over your opponent. I also space out during cross; I will probably be listening in the background; but if something important is going on just say my name or call me out and I'll start paying attention.

-I nod a lot and am generally expressive with facial expressions. Take what you will from this.

-ask questions after the round(even if you won, this is bolded for a reason). The judge is a resource you can use on improving yourself. I will accept post rounding; honestly I get it lol anger is justified if you tried your best. Just keep it civil or else i will just walk out of the room.

Shoutout Evan Burns, I'm stealing this from you:

-Please signpost---It makes my flow so much more organized, my life easier and your chances at the ballot better. To incentivize this I will reward you with good speaks for ample signposting and punish you ever so slightly for bad signposting.

-In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. "Extend x because it was conceded" is not a warrant I can pull the trigger on; I would prefer to see some effort to address that issue --- it takes 1 second to explain the warrant. I will mark CPs as "dropped" if not extended.

Preferably, to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round, be it any metric you use to achieve this.

=====Novices======

A few words of advice before the round:

-Idc if you want to send the doc or no but if you are, here's my email, feel free to ask me questions on this email: arjdebate@gmail.com

-Side Note: if we're doing email chain: PLEASE use word. I hate google docs for debate, the docs are always so janky. If you're sending it over and are still using docs for some reason, Make sure that your opponent can highlight, download, access the doc, whatnot. I do not wanna see you un-adding people to the doc after the round is over.

-Debate's a game and I appreciate you spending your weekend on this activity. The overall goal for this activity is to have fun and learn. The educational value of debate is precious- try and preserve it. I appreciate jokes during speech and all but save the meme stuff for when you're in varsity

-A pet peeve of mine is talking over someone when its not your cx. If its your cx sure cut your opp off your opp should know when you want them to stop talking. You can be firm, but please see to it that your opponent isn't crying. I really do not want to deal with that.

-I recognize that there is no tab judge and all judges have their biases but i will try my best to keep those aside.

-I am generally not persuaded by the way you modulate your voice or how you speak. How you speak will not determine this round for me, but it might get you better speaks.

-Apart from that, you do you, I do not care if you sit/stand, shout, do whatever you want to do with how you speak etc. I want it to be known that the round is a chill area where y'all are having fun, not stressing over folds in your dress or other kinds of nonsense. You are here to debate, and I am here to judge; end of story. I will not vote on things concerning issues outside of that room or concerning how your opponent dresses/talks etc.

================================

----------Debate Thoughts---------

-Important things are bolded.

-Tech > Truth

-Scroll down to know debate opinions

-----GENERAL-------

How I will evaluate the debate:

-I am a flow judge: I will vote on what is in my flow. If it isn't; it wasn't clear enough for me (Yes, judges can make mistakes, but I trust myself enough to not make risky decisions). I am more than happy to drop you if I cannot explain the argument I am voting for. [This does not mean I will intervene or am truth > tech, rather that I need a warrant/justification for why I am voting for you. No matter how ridiculous the warrant is, it NEEDS to be there.] I hate intervening and will do mental gymnastics to avoid intervening. Typically, my ballot ends up being for the side that is the easiest path or wins the key argument [The highest layer of the debate] in the round - Be it impact calc, solvency, etc, there needs to be a critical issue in the round that I can pull the trigger on because I do not want to do work --- Water takes the path of least resistance, and so do I. If that's presumption then so be it (will not hesitate to vote on presumption. I've done this so many times).

Typically this is what my thought process looks like:

Start with the highest layer, evaluate the rest later.

1] Framework:

-I start my decision with the framing mechanism: I will view the round through your framework if you win it. This doesn't mean you win the debate, just that I will prefer impacts you make. If there is no framework, I will default to consequentialism/util

[Note for TRAD LD]:

-if you're doing the whole value criterion thing: Please please please please kick the value debate. I do not want to hear a debate on morality vs justice- in debate they're the same thing to me. Also fine w/ single standard stuff if you don't wanna do a v/c. Just lmk how to evaluate the round idc how you do it.

2] Impact Calc:

-After framework, I look to impact calc. Tell me who has the biggest impact, weigh it against your opponents, and PLEASE engage in the line by line.

-I love impact calc debates

3]Judge instruction:

-Write the ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you.

-If I don't see proper warranting, weighing, etc I vote neg on presumption. Simple. I will not be doing the work for you. Tell me why your case/args matters or I will consider it trash.

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

---------------Policy--------------

I know these events are different but I will be evaluating them more or less the same. See debate opinions for specifics.

Give me interesting strats. I love cheaty cps, be as shameless as you can be. Anything goes, j be nice.

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

=====Debate Opinions========

-Presumption

Presumption & Permissibility go NEG unless otherwise told. I will not flip just because an alternate world is introduced---make the argument and I will flip. It's just my default. I am easily convinced for either side, the argument j needs to be there.

-Trix and Theory

- I will vote on it. However, if you want to go down this path and cannot execute it properly, your chances at the ballot, and a speaker award will go down drastically. But, proper execution will be rewarded with a W and high speaks. Do not pretend as if you do not know what an apriori is. You should be prepared to debate/explain what you said in the 1NC/AC. If you can't, then don't read it --- It's that simple. Please try to be genuine to opponents who are unfamiliar with your arguments, it's the least you can do.

- I default no RVIs for LD and Policy. Will vote on RVIs, but will not be too pleased.

- If someone reads trix against you, make an RVI against every single one of them!

- Not of a fan of traditional tricks, be creative and you might j impress me. No, I don't like determinism. If it is conceded, you still have to win presumption/permissibility.

-Ks:

Have delved a lot into K theory. Chances are whatever K you are reading, I am familiar with it or have seen it being read. I am comfortable with most Ks on this ranking:

Note: Don't just read this and bust out the baudrillard NC, I will not hack for you if you read nonsense. I still need to understand what you are saying and I will not fill in the gaps for you.

1: PoMo [Bataille, Baudy, Psycho and psycho spinoffs (race, existentialism etc)], Stock Ks, Cap and its spinoffs [Anarchism, Marx, Bifo etc], SetCol [Tuck and Yang, Schotten], Fem IR, security, etc

2: Queer Theory[Baedan, Muñoz, Edelemen, Puar] Afropess(Not bc I don't like it, I j don't know enough and by far am not an expert/qualified to make judgements on this part of literature)

4: Reps Ks. Unless something egregious has happened that warrants intervention, I will not be happy listening to reps Ks, word PIKs etc.

These Ks make me cringe but I will still vote on it: PoMo (please don't be weird about it), Deleuze[If you can explain deleuze properly yes, its a 1. I have a HIGH threshold for explaining deleuze. PLS don't make use of jargon that you and I both don't know] [If you read tankie stuff it will leave a distaste in my mouth.], Schopenhauer as a K doesn't make much sense to me, Berlant, Lenin(Seriously wtf)

If you impact turn cap and lose the ROTB, I still have no choice but to vote neg [yes, i know that the ROTB then justifies a bad thing, but unless that argument is made, I cannot make that argument for you. This arg should not be hard for you to win if you are winning the impact turn].

You need to win the alt or the K is fundamentally NUQ. [Unless ofc the k is some sort of a reps K]

Not a huge fan of PIKs [Unless creative] will evaluate it all the same.

Specific links > Generic links

Link turns the case is an excellent argument that is very underused.

You need to win a risk of Impact D to prove a link to the security K.

AFF should probably get to weigh the case against the K.[Unless you are winning FW which is not hard for me to flip either side of the aisle]

For policy bros trying to impact turn Ks with heg good all that, pls pls establish how it turns the K. Don't just read heg good and expect me to vote for you on it. [Again, needs to be properly executed. I will not hack for you if you run with "extinction outweighs haha!" with 0 warrants and fail to engage with anything]

If debated evenly i think condo justifies a perfcon

-K Affs and Tfwk

I slightly lean neg on fwk unless you impact turn fwk which I will then weigh on an equal level. [I love impact turns]

Good tfwk debates must answer the question "why" on multiple levels [Why in debate, why this round, why this ballot, what will Arjun's ballot change etc], "what debate should be/ should be instead" and contest the spillover claim if made.

Microaggressions: I believe calling tab solves. I don't think I should be given the power to flow racism as a technical debate.

If you are going to run a k aff in front of me, please impact turn tfwk instead of insisting that your aff is topical. I find impact turns to t much much more persuasive rather than obscure definition debates about the k interpretation of the topic or whatever. Ofc still include it in your block, just know the probability of me voting on america = assemblage is not high.

CI must exist. You should defend an alternate model distinct from being T.

I will weigh the CI and the shell on the same level unless told otherwise

Counter standards aren't Voting issues. The inevitable silencing/exclusion DA should have proper warranting.

I'm slightly more comfortable with the fairness side of the debate since that is what I always went for; but I'm cool with the education/testing 2nr too. I like the testing DA on an education 2nr.

-Phil

I'm comfortable enough with a lot of authors to competently evaluate a round. While I haven't read these positions, I do a lot of outside debate reading of these authors and will be sad if you butcher these

To name a few authors like Kant, camus, sartre, macintyre, civic republicanism, Hobbes some random other phil authors. -I LOVE DESCRIPTIVE FWS! But, I will not automatically hack for you if you run these positions. You will be held to a standard.

I don't have much familiarity with Nietzsche, policy kids: don't j read my paradigm and pull out some quirky ass K.

-CP:

Most of my career was this

Starting with CP section:

-Yes! love them.

-Loooove GOOD conditions CPs.

-Process CPs are very nice. I mostly lean neg on theory

-Not a fan of Delay.

-Must have a NB.

Thoughts on competition:

-CP solvency. As long as it solves enough [establish sufficiency framing in round] of the aff and has a NB. Not a huge fan of textual competition, chances are if the CP competes f'nally I'm more likely to lean NEG.

-Real world explanation is a good litmus test --- don't j say stuff like CP: USFG should solve climate change.

-"Aff solves better" is not a real argument---Find a real deficit.

-Neutral on intrinsicness. It kinda depends on the cp ig? Be prepared to defend a brightline

-Aff needs to be able to defend an oppurtunity cost.

-If the NB isn't intrinsic/germane to the aff, I give the aff more leeway for the perm. The more germane the NB is, the more I lean neg.

-Don't care for perm texts.

Condo:

I don't like the "1 vs 2 off" condo debate. That brightline is sooooo arbitrary. Don't be a coward, defend condo good/bad as a whole.

Slight neg bias, but its a sliding scale: the more conditional advocacies, the more I will give aff leeway with condo. In LD 3+ condo is probably the brightline for me where I will start giving the aff some sort of credence. Policy i kinda dont care

Went for the condo 2ar a bunch, be brave and I will reward you with good speaks.

DA:

-Love 'em.

-Sucker for turns/ows case. [Again, needs to be properly executed. I will not hack for you if you run with "extinction outweighs haha!" with 0 warrants and fail to engage with anything]

-Impact calc wins debates --- make sure yours does.

-Establish the link. UQ probably controls the link. Zero risk is probably a thing [unless told otherwise].

-Ptx: Not a huge fan of intrinsicness tests. Aff probably gets away with specifying who passes the plan.

Like ptx disads to be more specific. If u can name who won't vote on the bill that will make me so happy.

T/Topicality:

-Less inclined to see a topicality debate.

-My topic knowledge sucks so I will not be familiar with caselists and other lit bases you are referencing. It's safe to avoid T debates in front of me if you like to mention schools by name to list as ground instead of telling me what aff those schools read.

-More often than not, im not too pleased with nebel or subsets.

-Legit T shells and clashy debates on T are cool.

-Thoughts on things like death good/wipeout/spark

I'm okay with it as long as you are respectful and not blippy. Do not trigger your opponents. If they are unsafe with such arguments being presented in round, don't force the issue. Be nice, don't force people to relive trauma.

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

good luck.

Fred Robertson, retired teacher and speech and debate coach---lives in Omaha, Nebraska

I coached at Fremont High School and Millard West High School for the bulk of my career, retiring in 2013. I guess I am semi-retired since I do assist in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Omaha Marian High School for coach Halli Tripe, and I still judge on the Nebraska circuit fairly regularly. I also direct and teach at my non-profit, Guided by Kids, along with Payton Shudak, a former state champion Lincoln-Douglas debater at Millard West. At Guided by Kids, we offer free speech and debate instruction, as well as encourage community involvement, for 5th-8th graders in the Omaha metro area. I also ran my debate camp, the Nebraska Debate Institute, every summer from 2004 to 2020.

During my career, I served on the NFL/NSDA Lincoln-Douglas wording committee for over 10 years, and I was happy to be admitted to the NFL/NSDA Coaches’ Hall of Fame in 2015. Being in the same group as J.W. Patterson, the late Billy Tate, Lydia Esslinger, and Kandi King—to name just a few of the people in that Hall who have been or continue to be incredible individuals and educators-- is a great honor.

I judge Lincoln-Douglas debate more than anything else, but I will include Public Forum, Policy, and Congress as I have been used in those events as well.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

One thing that distinguishes me from other judges is that I expect quality speaking. That means you ought to be looking at me and speaking with inflection which shows understanding of what you are saying, even if you are reading evidence. I am tired of watching students read to me, even though they are delivering their cases to me for the tenth time. That’s simply bad speaking.

I am not a fan of speed when you can’t be at all clear. I’ll just say slow down and if you don’t, it’s your own fault if I don’t flow arguments or understand what you are saying. In debate, less can be more if you learn to choose arguments and evidence wisely. Too many LD debaters are adopting the “kitchen sink” style of debate—throw as much nonsense as possible and then claim drops as critical to how I should judge the round. Usually, that isn't a successful strategy when I am judging.

Lots of theory arguments made in LD are lamentable at best and would be railed against by policy judges who know what a good theory argument should be. I think that sums up my attitude towards 90% of the theory arguments I hear in LD rounds. That doesn’t mean theory arguments should never be run. What it means is that I usually see these arguments run in rounds in which an opponent is doing nothing theoretically objectionable, but nevertheless I’m stuck watching someone who has been coached “to run theory” always because it’s "cool" or who has made this bad choice independently. In these rounds, I am bored by meaningless drivel, and I’m not happy.

I enjoy debate on the resolution, but that does not mean critical approaches (critiques, or the K, or whatever you want to call it) cannot be appropriate if done well. I enjoy seeing someone take a critical approach because they genuinely believe that approach is warranted because of a resolution, or because of an opponent’s language in reading case or evidence (but there are limits—sometimes these claims of a link to warrant a critique are dubious at best). or because the debater argues the issue is so important it ought to be valid to be argued in any debate. I’ve voted for many critical cases and approaches in LD and policy over the years. If I see that approach taken skillfully and genuinely, I often find these arguments refreshing and creative. If I see that approach taken for tactical reasons only, in a phony, half-baked way, however, I often find myself repulsed by critical arguments posited by students who appear not to care about what they are arguing. I am sure many ask "How do you determine who is being genuine and who isn’t?" 40 years of teaching and coaching have made me an expert judge concerning matters like this, but I do admit this is largely a subjective judgment.

Telling me what is offense/defense and what I must vote on regarding your claims regarding these distinctions has always bored me. Tell me in a clear way why an argument your opponent has made does not matter, or how your answer takes the argument out. Using the jargon is something you’ve learned from mainly college judges (some college judges are quite good, but my generalization is solid here) but, at 66, I’m not a college judge. I feel pretty much the same way about the often frenetically shouted claim of “turns” aplenty. Settle down and explain why your opponent’s argument actually supports your side. I may agree.

Other stuff—fine to ask me some questions before round about my preferences, but please make them specific and not open-ended to the point of goofiness. Asking me “What do you like in a round?” is likely to lead to me saying “Well, I’d like one of you to speak like Martin Luther King and the other to speak like Elie Wiesel; or perhaps bell hooks and Isabel Wilkerson---but I doubt that’s going to happen.” Please be on time to rounds and come with a pre-flow done. Don’t assume I’m “cool with flex c-x and/or prep time.” If the tournament tells me I have to be “cool” with those rules I will be, but if I haven't been told that, I'm not. Ask me if you can speak sitting down. Of course I accommodate needs to do so, but often this is just done by speakers because it’s too dang hard, I guess, for you to stand to speak or do c-x. I find that perplexing, but if you ask, in a nice way, I may say “Oh, what the heck. It’s round five and everyone’s tired.” You should bring a timer and time yourself and your opponent; keep prep time also. I’d rather flow and write substantive comments rather than worry about timing.

A final word—I still love judging Lincoln-Douglas debate, and especially seeing new debaters who add their voices to this activity. It’s also a joy to see someone stick with the activity and keep getting smarter and better. Too often, however, I see very intelligent novice debaters who deteriorate in speaking skills as they advance through varsity LD. All I can say is that with the very best Lincoln-Douglas debaters I judged over a long and still-continuing career, that did not happen. Jenn Larson, Chris Theis, Tom Pryor (blast from the past for Minnesotans who remember that incredibly witty and brilliant guy), and Tom Evnen come to mind. I am old, yes, and I’m not “cool” according to many who would judge judges nowadays, but I am straightforward in telling you who I am, and I will never tell you anything other than the truth as I see it in an LD round I judge.

Public Forum:

Read my LD stuff to get the picture. I’m tired of continual claims of “cheating” in Public Forum. Slow down, read actual quotations as evidence and choose them wisely so they constitute more than blippy assertions.

I have no bias against PF at all. Loved coaching it and had many high-quality teams. A great PF round is a great debate round. Make sure to give me a sound “break it down” analytical story in the summary and final focus and you will be ahead of the game with me. Stay calm and cool for the most part, though of course assertive/aggressive at times is just part of what you should do when debating. It’s just that I have seen this out of control in far too many PF rounds, especially in Grand C-X, or Crossfire, or whatever that misplaced (why have c-x after the summaries have been presented?) abomination is called.

Policy: Love the event, though it was the last one I learned to coach fairly well. If I’m in a round, I usually ask for some consideration regarding speed, just so I can flow better. If you read my LD paradigm, you can see where I most likely stand on arguments. If I happen to judge a policy round, which is fairly rare, but does happen—just ask me good, specific questions prior to the round.

Congress: I usually judge at NSDA districts only but that of course is a very important congress event. I have coached many debaters and speech students as well who were successful in Congress, though it was never a first focus event with the bulk of students I coached. I like to see excellent questioning, sound use of evidence, and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see congresspeople extending and elaborating on arguments wisely, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. It’s wise for you not to do a lot of goofball parliamentary maneuvers. That’s just not good strategy for you if you want to impress me, and I most often end up as a parliamentarian when I do judge Congress, so overall impression becomes very important to how I rank you. I’ve seen some great congressional debate over the last 30 plus years I’ve judged it, but most of the time, I’ve seen too many repetitive, canned speeches followed by non-responsive rebuttal speeches. If you do what I prefer, however-- which is the opposite of that kind of “bad Congress”-- you can do fairly well.

He/him/his

I would strongly prefer us to use SpeechDrop but my email: zeinsalehemail@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

K- 1

T/Theory/Policy- 2

Phil- 2/3

Tricks- Strike

Background: 5 years of LD/NFA-LD @ Lincoln North Star & UNL. Competed on the local + national circuit. NE state champion in 2021 and 2022.

As a debater I often went for: Critical/Soft Left Affs, CPs/DAs, Ks (Islamophobia, Cap, Militarism), T, and a tiny bit of phil (Prag, Particularism).

Tech > Truth

Summary: ***Generally, read whatever you want. I have my preferences but feel free to convince me differently. I will ultimately vote off the flow and what arguments are best warranted/extended by the end of the round.

Disclaimer: Debate should be an educational and safe space for all students. Any exclusionary rhetoric will obviously not be tolerated. You should give content warnings for graphic depictions of violence and be accessible to students who need accommodations.

Disclosure is good. I will vote on disclosure theory.

Speed: 7-8 is fine if you are clear. It is in your favor to slow down on tags, interps, plantexts, analytics etc. Signpost. Pause for a second between different sheets.

Policy: Go for it. Good Impact turn debates (dedev, heg bad/good) are interesting. Bad impact turn debates (extinction good) are not. I like unique DAs with strong internal links. I strongly dislike nuclear terrorism scenarios.

Counterplans need a net benefit. PICs, Consult, Agent CPs etc are all fine. Condo is fine, although I'm convinced 2-3+ condo sheets in LD is abusive. Not particularly familiar with CP theory or adjudicating these debates.

Phil: I didn’t read much phil in high school but am familiar with some authors (Rawls, Hobbes, Kant, Butler, Mcintyre, Levinas). Please slow down on analytical justifications for your framework. I think you should have some offense under your framework rather than two sentences that relate to the topic.

Tricks: No. Also not a fan of permissibility, moral skepticism, or other similar LD shenanigans. Make real arguments.

T/Theory: Go for it. I don't need "proven abuse." Default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, and no RVI (which is silly).

Kritiks: I enjoy K v Policy debates. However, you should have specific links to the aff and don’t assume I know your lit. 2NR overviews are fine but you also need to do line by line or I find collapsed 2AR perms/link turns/weighing persuasive. I think the aff should explain the world of the perm in the 2AR. I am a fan of alt solves case and serial policy failure arguments. I need significantly more explanation for abstract post-modern kritiks. Tell me what your alternative does.

I am familiar with: Identity/Reps Ks (Islamophobia/Orientalism, Set Col, Fem, Anti-blackness/Afropess, Queer Theory etc), Biopolitics, Cap, Militarism

I am a little bit/vaguely familiar with: Puar, Deleuze, Weheliye

I generally dislike/don’t care to learn about: Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Bataille, most POMO tbh

I am fairly convinced by speaking for others arguments.

Kritikal Affs vs Framework: I like these debates. Typically, a counterinterp with answers on standards is more convincing to me than impact turns, but I can also be persuaded by a good collapse on framework.

Other LD stuff: I don't care if you sit or stand. I’d prefer you do line-by-line analysis in later speeches than give me random voters.

Please ask me if you have any questions. Good luck, have fun!

I spent my high school career debating Lincoln-Douglas. After graduating in 2012, I have consistently judged LD in Nebraska. I am more familiar with traditional debate but am open to accept more progressive positions as long as there is a clear claim, warrant, and impact. I strive to be "tabula rasa" when evaluating debate. Just make sure to do your job and convince me why I should vote in your favor.

Speed: I am not a fan of speed. I can keep up most of the time. However, attempting to speed can certainly negatively impact the debater if I'm not able to efficiently flow. I will clearly express if you're going too fast by not flowing and giving you a confused look.

Arguments: I am open to almost every type of argument as long as it is warranted and clear.

Theory: I will vote if very clear abuse is present. However, unless its absolutely necessary I will be upset with you if you turn the debate into a theory round because you lack substantial responses to your opponents case. I am a big fan of discussing the actual resolution.

Overall, I am a fairly traditional judge. Yet I have experience debating and judging more progressive debate. Demeanor and decorum are important to me. Presentation is important. However, I will ultimately vote for the winner of the best arguments.

I have 2 years of experience in LD and 2 years of experience in Policy. I went to Millard South High School.

I ran mostly traditional arguments in high school so if you run high theory debates I fully support it I just need you to really explain your link to the resolution and/or the affirmative and explain your alternative really well.

I don't always remember to time so please remember to time yourselves.

Email: emmagsorrell@gmail.com

Add me to the email chains just because I like to read the unhighlighted portions of cards.

If I hear the same case ran multiple times with pre-fiat education claims I find it pretty unpersuasive.

I also love analytical arguments. I love analytics, it makes me think that y'all are doing the debating in your own head and thinking for yourselves and not just reading cards.

Policy

Affirmative

If you are running a K affirmative, you should still be spending almost all of your 2AC on case. Listening to a critical affirmative is one thing but being able to explain your alternative, link to the resolution and why your pre-fiat impacts have solvency is extremely important to me. Because of this, I find myself skewed against K affirmatives because I have a pretty high solvency threshold. Know your case an explain to me why I vote on it, or else I will vote Negative on presumption.

I like affirmative cases. I'm pretty even Steven on condo arguments, I think if the negative is making contradictory arguments I would buy condo bad a lot more, but at the end of the day it's all up to interpretations.

I find myself liking generic links bad arguments. I find it persuasive to me if the affirmative says "the negative cannot prove how the affirmative specifically triggers X."

I like permutation arguments to be materialized. If the affirmative can specifically show a world with direct interaction between their plantext and the alternative I will almost always vote for the permutation.

Negative

If you are running a K, explain your alternative. I see way too many teams barely talk about their alternative because they argue the links too hard. I will not buy an empty K shell. Tell me what your K does and how your alternative functions/solves.

I love PICs. Literally if you run a case-specific PIC I will probably vote for you.

I read the entirety cards, if the affirmative has bad evidence and negative lets them get away with it, I will be mad and point it out in my notes.

I will probably not vote negative if you have no on-case evidence. You have proved that the affirmative is fulfilling their burden so why should I ignore their entire case with full solvency for a K with a grassroots movements DA. I probably will not buy it unless you are an off-case god.

If you rely on a K or a CP for all of your solvency I am super against flowing this affirmative, that being said I will if it feels necessary. Don't screw up the perm work, that should be the argument you prep out the most on a K/CP. (Hence why I love PICs)

(updated Oct 2024)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004. TOC qualifier.

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005.

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019.

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present.

Quick Prefs: (1=best, 4=worst, 5=strike me)

truth>tech. That doesn't mean I intervene against arguments I don't like, but it does mean I don't care very much if the 2 second theory blip you shadow extended is dropped. For more insight, read more than the "quick prefs" section.

LD:

Speed: 5 (I come from nat circuit policy. I can handle the flow. In my experience, LD is significantly worse than policy in terms of spreading things that shouldn't be - specifically theory and large chunks of analyticals. I'm done begging. If you spread those things, just assume I'm not flowing it).

K/Phil: 1

LARP: 1

Theory: 4

Tricks: 5

CX:

CP/DA/Case: 1

K (aff or neg): 1

T: 2-3

Theory: 4-5

exclusive frameworks ("no Ks", etc): 5

PF:

paraphrasing: hard 5

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - 5

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff : 2

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4 (5 if done poorly)

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs -

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Exclusive Frameworks 5

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I'd prefer you just use direct quotes but if that isn't possible please strike me. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate and I would argue one of the most educational. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

Pronouns: she/they

Add me to the email chain- brtdebate@gmail.com

(speech drop is fine too)

^ I expect docs to be shared in the round in some way, shape, or form. (That is especially true for online debate). Flashing cases is the bare minimum. IMO if you're refusing to flash cases, that's sketch af and I'm probs gonna think you miscut your evidence if you refuse to show it to me. If you refuse to share evidence (esp when asked), do not be shocked if your speaks suffer as a result.

*the exception is performance/narrative stuff, y'all do your thing

—TLDR—

tech>>>truth

I’m a second year out from the NE LD circuit and now do NFA-LD (some NDT-CEDA). I'm open to evaluating nearly anything that is presented to me. I'm familiar with policy args, theory/T, k's/k affs, performance stuff, etc.

***Don't think I will refuse to evaluate/tank speaks if I watch trad debate. I'm here to judge what's presented to me and judges who refuse to listen to certain types of args (unless they're offensive and harmful to ppl) is ridiculous.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask!

——EXPERIENCE——

LD at Lincoln Southwest HS (2019-2023)

NFA-LD (and some NDT-CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2023-Present)

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest HS (2023-24)

Head Coach at Lincoln Northwest HS (2024-Present)

—PREF SHEET—

K - 1

Performance - 1

LARP/Policy/DAs/CPs- 1

Phil - 3/4

**Tricks - strike**

—SPEAKS—

(from Zach Thornhill's paradigm)

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correctly in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have little to no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

—— LD ——

Speed:

I'm solid with speed. Slow down a bit on tags, T shells, & analytics and we’re chilling.

Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be accommodating to your peers pls.

Theory/Topicality:

Totally good with it. Here are some things to note for me:

Theory should have an interp, standards, and voters that have been extended throughout the debate. I'm not gonna vote for your limits standard if you don't extend the interp (or even worse don't even have one). T/theory is never a reverse voter (i.e. RVIs aren't real). Needing proven abuse is silly. Affs that say don't vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterterms that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad, then warrant that out in the standards debate. Disclosure is generally good IMO, but you gotta win the theory debate here. I'll vote for theory out of the 1ar.

DA’s/CP’s/PIC’s:

Good with em.

Please have an explicit counterplan text. I've seen "counterplans" that think they can fly without one, but if I don't know explicitly what the CP does, I can't vote for it. Same goes with a net benefit, idk how some of y'all think a cp without one is at all competitve.

I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove the cp to be competitive (as long as there’s a perm on the CP).

If the CP is dispo, you better be able to explain what that means because apparently no one has a common definition of what it is.

Kritikal stuff:

Good with em, ran em a lot.

Lit I've run and I'm familiar with: Fem/FKJ, Biopolitics & Necropolitics, Cap, Set Col

Bottom line: you should know your lit and be able to explain it to me and your opponent. I know surface level stuff about other lit bases, but this still applies :)

***note for performance stuff:

Performance stuff is dope. I’ve seen/ran poetics, music, story-telling, dance, and narrative-based performance & am def willing to vote on it if you do the work for it.

Phil:

I never really ran it and don’t love phil debate, but I’ll obvi evaluate it. I have surface-level understandings of some phil (social contract theory, absurdism, existentialism, Kantian ethics, etc), but don’t expect me to know your phil for you. Make sure you can explain it to me & your opponent.

—— POLICY ——

Most of the prog LD stuff should apply here. I haven't judged much hs policy so my topic knowledge/ knowledge of hs norms is somewhat limited.

If you have any other questions that aren’t answered, feel free to ask before the round!

—— PF ——

If for some reason the tourney put me in PF, know that I have limited experience with this event and know a little about the norms. I’ll do my best to adapt, but I have some non-negotiable preferences.

Make sure you have warrants for your arguments, just making baseless assertions is not enough for me.

I’m not a fan of paraphrasing, cite your evidence in correctly cut cards that are preferably shared with everyone.

I’ll evaluate theory in the same way I would in LD/Policy so refer to that :) I'm also probs a good judge for feedback on that front.

——————

All in all, good luck and have fun! Always feel free to come up and ask me any questions before or after the round!

*Also I'm a huge movie and music buff, so if you have any recs - I'd love to hear them :)

pronouns: any | email: victorthoms037@gmail.com &

millardnorthpolicy@gmail.com

TL;DR

• Read what you enjoy reading - make debate fun
• Tech > Truth
• Tag-Team CX (open cross) & Flex-Prep is alright
• If you have a trigger warning, offer an alternative option
• Good with speed
• Online debate: my camera broke :( but I swear im there!

Background: I debated policy for 3 years at Millard North with some experience at the nat circuit level. I qualified for nationals twice and had some success in the Nebraska circuit. I've been an assistant coach and judge throughout college. I've experienced many different arguments so at this point I'm willing to vote on anything.

Coached CX at Omaha Central (21-23)

Coached LD at Lincoln North Star (23-24)

Coaching CX at Millard North (24-25)

The not TL;DR part

General things:

I rarely intervene when making my decisions, however to make sure that never happens do the absolute bare minimum in whatever event. (i.e., weighing, solvency).

Presumption and permissibility negate.

Everything needs a warrant, I won't vote on an argument just because you told me so, give me a reason.

I need some good justifications for an RVI, its a high burden for me.

Please try to fill out your speech time, especially novices, do some weighing.

In round abuse is hard to quantify most times, unless its very obvious you should try to go for norm setting instead.

Feel free to talk to one another in the round, I don't care much for uptight and professional debate environments.

Don't get super mean or something, that's awkward.

PF: Full disclosure, I am not fully acquainted with the norms of PF, but as long as teams clearly weigh I should be able to make a cohesive and acceptable ballot.

LD:

Any arguments that aren't listed here can be found in the CX portion, I evaluate it the same.

Trad (LD) - When reading trad arguments, I'd like to see debaters go more in depth. For example, justifications for why their frameworks uniquely matter in discussing issues. This isn't necessary to win my vote, but it makes it easier for me to push my ballot in your direction. Even if its not fully explained, still weigh.

Phil (LD) - I'm not the most experienced with phil, but read it either way. I have used more phil based frameworks many times (while evaluating the round) and it has never made a scenario where I didn't know what it was talking about.

Tricks - I am not the most familiar with tricks, but I evaluate it before most other arguments in the round. If the argument is flimsy and mostly there to be a goofy time skew, I will buy your opponent's offense quite easily. Don't let my indifference stop you from reading tricks, time skews can be effective.

CX:

Larp/Plans - Plan affs are the type of affirmatives I do best with. Even if the plan text is not clear and may not fully match the evidence that is read, as long as I buy that the aff solves I tend to be ready to cast my ballot for the aff. However, I see some debaters forgetting that, unless they justify otherwise, they have to solve in order to win. Don't forget about solvency! I won't just vote on floating impact scenarios most times unless fully justified and will default presumption.

DA - If you intend on dropping the disad from the beginning, then you can ignore this section, you just keep balling. However, please be sure to explain how the disad links. I am going to be less persuaded to vote for the impact outweighing if I don't buy that it links in the first place. I can be pretty stingy about this, but it is rarely an issue.

CP - Mutual exclusivity is easy enough to justify, but how the CP solves better than the aff tends to trip some debaters up. Spend some time in the rebuttal to explain why the CP solves better. Obviously, CPs tend to be very strategic so if you bend these rules I'll be fine with that, just guide me how to evaluate it in round.

K - Read what you like, but make sure that your advocacy is clear. I appreciate Ks being a way to introduce personal advocacy into the debate space. However, make sure that you guide me on how to vote in this round, whether that be a role of the ballot or another informal fashion. If the alternative deals with post-fiat offense, describe how the alt solves and having examples ready to go in rebuttals or cx makes a ballot easier to get.

ROTB - Spend more time on your role of the ballot than you think you need to. I need to know why I should be voting the way I am, not just a baseless request. I prefer role of the ballots that do more than just imply that I should hack for the side that reads it (i.e., connect it back with why your advocacy matters). This doesn't mean I won't use it, but it will be a far easier debate for you if it is justified by whatever you are reading. I find that teams that rely on the ROB for alt solvency tend to efficient on the flow, but not effective in explanations.

Theory/ T - Can't lie, I love theory. Even if that wasn't the case, I evaluate theory first. Debaters should give examples of abuse to justify why they are reading it. These can be the most flimsy justifications in the world, but I want to see them there because if not I will buy reasonability or we-meets easily. Justifications allow me to ignore time skew arguments read by opponents.

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

Last Revision: December 9th, 2019

*Digital Debate Note (added 5/16/20):

1) I can handle just about any speed in person. The same doesn't hold true for online debate (at least until I get better equipment/get used to it). I hate telling people to slow down, but you should slow down during online debates. I will indicate via the chat function or by interrupting if you are lagging (just as I would say clear).

2) If someone drops out of the round via connection issues, we will pause the speeches.

3) Just like you wouldn't cheat by chatting with a coach during an in-person tournament, don't cheat in online debate.

4) Don't record the round without the permission of the tournament and everyone in the room.

TL;DR

Email for evidence/cases: colwhite54@gmail.com

I’ve coached or debated in just about every event, and I’ll do my best to adjudicate the debate as fairly as I can. Your best strategy is probably to make the arguments that you think would be the best arguments to win the debate. As long as you can do that while being a kind and ethical competitor, then you’re good to go. Respect the other people in the room and don’t be a jerk.

Let me know if you have any questions that aren’t answered by this paradigm.

Commonly asked questions about my preferences on a spectrum (heavily dependent on context - you do you 95% of the time):

Truth over Tech <----------------X---------> Tech Over Truth

• It’s probably not my job to say what’s true, but silly arguments have a much higher threshold of persuasion.

Speed <----X---------------------> NO Speed

• I mostly judge on a local circuit, but assume I can follow unless I say clear/speed.

“Trad” <------------------X-------> “Progressive/Circuit”

• I dislike these descriptors, so try to be more specific with your questions.

Debate the Topic <----X---------------------> Non-T

• I’ve personally read and voted for/against both, but I usually prefer if you debate the topic.

Quality of Evidence <-X------------------------> A Billion Terrible Cards

Number Your Arguments <-------X-------------------> Say “AND” between each card/analytic

Experience

I am the head coach at Lincoln Southeast High School, the former head coach at Lincoln North Star High School, and a former assistant coach at Lincoln East High School. I have been coaching since 2015. I run the Lincoln-Douglas Camp at the Nebraska Debate Institute. In college I won the 2018 national championship in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Forensics Association National Tournament after debating with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for three years. I was one of two American debaters to be chosen for the 2019 Tour of Japan through the National Communication Association’s Committee on International Discussion and Debate’s partnership with the Japan Debate Association. I also coached debate in Shanghai, China during 2018 through a summer fellowship with LearningLeaders. I competed in Nebraska high school debate for 4 years.

Events I most often judge/coach (in order):

HS/College Lincoln-Douglas

HS Policy/CX

HS Public Forum

HS Congress

WSDC (HS Worlds)

British Parliamentary (College Worlds)

American Parliamentary/NPDA (College)

HEnDA (Japanese HS Policy)

Specific Preferences Based on Events

HS LD

I evaluate the framework first and then look at which debater has the biggest and/or most contextualized offense under that framework. If I cannot distinguish your offense from your opponent’s offense, it is difficult for me to assess how the framework operates in the round. You have to tell me why your offense applies to whichever framework we’re using and why your opponent’s offense doesn’t matter or isn’t as important.

Ks are fine, phil is fine, LARP is fine, etc. Just don’t assume I know your lit. Hold yourself to a high threshold of explanation and go for one or two well-developed arguments rather than many arguments that are barely touched on.

Flex Prep: If both debaters are okay with asking questions during CX, then it's fine. I would prefer if you do not skip CX and use the rest as prep time. If you cut CX short, that starts cutting into your prep time.

I will not vote on your short, barely warranted a priori arguments that don’t connect back to a standard. You don’t get an auto-affirm/negate by dunking on silly trick args.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

HS Policy

Refer to the College LD paradigm to answer most of your questions. The only warning I’ll give you is that theory justifications that have to do with the exact format of partner policy debate need to be explained since I usually judge 1-1 policy through college LD. I’m not totally up to date on the cutting edge of thinking about best practices in policy, but that just means you’ll have to warrant your theory args and win them rather than pander to my theoretical biases.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

College LD (NFA-LD)

Yes, I do want the speechdocs.

I don’t find appeals to the rules persuasive.

Ks are fine - contextualize the links as much as you can. I want to know how the alt functions and differs from the Aff.

I will vote neg on presumption if the aff doesn’t function (I won’t vote for an aff with no solvency because they have a “risk of offense” - you have to win that you have a risk of offense).

I don’t need proven abuse to vote on T or theory and I default to competing interps (unless the Aff wins reasons why the neg does need proven abuse or wins reasonability, but that’s hard to do)

Disclosure theory is probably underrated in college LD.

Do not run full-source citations theory.

Public Forum

Don’t read actual plans or counterplans in an attempt to adapt to an LD/Policy judge. However, because I know what these positions are, I won’t drop you or your opponents because they read something that you thought was a plan/CP but wasn’t. Same goes for Ks/Theory Shells (however, theoretical justifications for things like definitions and observations - framework light - are super encouraged).

Read cards rather than paraphrase if you can.