Elkhorn South

2018 — Omaha, NE/US

Saliman Attaie Paradigm

Experience: 2 years competing in speech and 4 years competing in debate at Lincoln North Star High School (2014-2018), I mainly competed in Public Forum and a little bit of Congress, I mainly judge LD now, with a little bit of PF

General Comments: Make sure you are respectful to your opponent and everyone else in the room, if I think you are purposely being disrespectful/rude towards anyone in the round I will lower your speaking points and it could potentially cost you the round.

Lincoln Douglas: I'm not a big fan of speed, as I continue to judge LD more and more I've gotten better at following along, I will say 'clear' if I can not understand you and need you to slow down, I also do not like speed that excludes your opponents. When it comes to the value/criterion, I want you to show me WHY your side is better, don't just say you need your value first to achieve your opponents value, that doesn't do you any good. Make sure to cover both sides of the flow, too many times in LD have I seen debaters have really good offense but not defend their case, or focus to much time defending their case, and not attack their opponents well enough, you need to find a good balance, I am also okay with flex prep if both debaters agree to it. Overall, just give some kind of weighing mechanism on why your points actually matter more than your opponents, and why I should vote for you.

Public Forum: I haven't judged PF that much anymore but there is a possibility I will at some point, Overall just pull through your points, make sure to sign post, and remember you're trying to persuade me, not your opponents. If I do end up judging you, you can ask me more specific questions about how I will vote.

Jacob Berggren Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emily Cole Paradigm

Not Submitted

Max Curry Paradigm

I'm a sophomore political science student at UNL. I debated in public forum since I started high high school at Millard North and Lincoln East and graduated in 2017. I appreciate well-thought out impact calculus and civility in rounds and and prefer public forum debate to be an analysis-driven activity rather than a series of mindless "card dumps". I of course do want to see outside evidence used and used well in rounds. However, I'm of the opinion that in public forum is beginning to become hypertechnical and increasingly esoteric, which I believe violates the unique role PF serves in the debate community. This in my eyes is to be a form of debate that could be performed in front of high school kids and parents and academics and understood well by all three. It doesn't have to be "dumbed down" and you don't need to debate "lay": PF should just be devoid of the hypertechnical and meta-debate-centric aspects of LD and CX debate that often make them unintelligible to the general population. "Debate about debate" seldom has a home in PF and cases constructed around elaborate framework is often fruitless. Try to stick as much as possible to an actual debate about the topic. I like to see:

-Strong and well-thought-put analyses of evidence

-Asking the right questions in cross-ex

-Clear road mapping/sign posting

-Argumentative focus on the resolution

-Civility and courtesy displayed to your opponents

-A narrowing focus from summary to final focus

-Sufficient attempt to rebuild in second summary

-Arguments with clear and plausible claim-warrant-impact chain (you can say "the impact is x". It's not a bad thing to be explicit)

-Strong engagement with your opponents' arguments

It may not impact how I vote in a round, but I don't like to see:

-Messy speech structure and execution, especially when I cannot understand you

-Speeches given so fast or so quietly I cannot understand them

-----^These two are so important. If I cannot understand you I can't vote on the arguments you're making. If I am sitting intently listening to you and still cannot get your arguments on the flow it is your fault.

-Not carrying arguments through speeches

-Rudeness. Good general rule is if you have to consider whether something is rude to do in a round it probably is. Decorum is king.

-Gratuitous requests for evidence. Just be considerate the time constraints of our tournaments and whether what you're requesting is actually pertinent.

-Gratuitous use of technical babble. If you need to use a technical debate term to serve a point you're making by all means do so. But the number of times you use say "cross-apply" or "internal warrant" will not make you arguments more cogent and it will not make me more likely to vote for you.



David Fager Paradigm

PF: I did public forum for 3 years in high school and was the 2nd speaker. I expect all teams speaking 2nd to defend in the rebuttal or will consider the points dropped. I am generally okay with speed, as long as you don't mumble. Negative teams cannot run counter plans or they will be dropped. More of a line by line then a summative flow. An argument should be brought up in every speech if it is to be weighed at the end of the round. A new argument must be brought up early in first summary or any speeches before that. Anytime after that, the value and credibility to me weakens.

LD: I am new to LD, but not new to debate. I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate, I will either say "Clear" or "Louder" if you do not speak well enough for me to hear. I can Judge well explained arguments, but will need you to do the work for me on framework and which to prefer. Don't just say prefer your criteria, give me a justification for why your framework/value should be weighed over the other teams. For me, you do not win the round if you win the framework, but i use the framework that i think wins, to evaluate the remaining arguments in the round. Since my history is with PF, where counter-plans are not used, I recommend staying to the value debate, but you are not going to automatically lose if you run a CP.

Allycia Gutierrez Paradigm

I did some debate in high school in public forum, but most of my experience was done in 2018-2019 in judging varsity PF. As long as you extend warrants and expound on your evidence, I can follow. Don’t just read me a card and leave it there without explanation. Bringing up new evidence in summary is also a poor choice. Be purposeful in your organization.

I don’t mind a bit of speed, but speak clearly. If you’re outright rude or defensive to opponents or me, you’re getting docked.

I favor clear links over “big name” sources. Signposting is appreciated.

Cameron Hall Paradigm

As a debater I was in PF for 4 years and spoke second so I am a large advocate for shooting down arguments and pulling your argument through. As a judge I focus on evidence and how you pull it through the entire round. Bring up good solid points and continue to pull it through the flow. If your opponent drops your points continue to bring them up and I will pull it through the flow. If you fail to pull your arguments through I will fail to pull them through on the flow so please do not be afraid of mentioning the same point or expanding the same argument it will help you win the round. I personally am not a fan of frame work so if you attempt to use framework do not make the entire round about argumentation on framework. I will continue to judge the arguments and flow both sides of the argument regardless of the framework for the round. When giving voters explain the importance and the weight they bear on the round and impact the outcomes of your arguments. I am pretty laid back and kind so lets have some fun.

Sara Hasan Paradigm

- Don't be rude to opponents during round (attacking during cross x)

- Explain your impacts and if you use cards don't just read the card, connect the card back to your case/contention

Michael Herndon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Paige Holt Paradigm

8 rounds

When it comes to Congress I look for strength of speech. I want strong valid points that line up with the speaking points. I don't want rehash unless you have a new point or direction to add. Speed is not judged by me either way, but make sure you speak clearly. Don't make a speech off the coattails of others.

Joe Howard Paradigm

8 rounds

*As of 01/30/2020*

If you don't understand a part of my paradigm please ask.

I have a decent amount of PF experience both competing and judging. I try to vote purely off the flow but I'm not sure that is even possible in PF. Be persuasive, tell a story, don't drop anything, and have fun.

I'm not very good with speed and if you don't signpost my flow will suffer.

If it's round 1 or 2 of the tournament I'm probably not familiar with the topic specific acronyms and jargon so please explain them at least once.

Trigger Warnings: If you are going to read a trigger warning please do it before the round. If you're giving round participants the opportunity to say we are not comfortable hearing your arguments then we reserve the right to ask that you don't present the arguments. You need a backup plan.

Framework: I see impact frameworks and interpretation frameworks as completely different things. Interpretation frameworks should be supported with impacts to the debate space (education, fairness, etc.). I'll accept any type of argumentation (not explicitly outlawed by the NSDA) unless the other team convinces me that I shouldn't because it is bad for PF. It's important to note that while I think "debate about debate" is key to securing your unorthodox (not impact-calc) interpretation, it is usually a huge time-suck. If both teams want to run Role of the Ballot, then great. But if Team A runs a K and team B tells me that PF should be accessible to the public and that Team A is undermining the value of PF as an event, I'm likely to accept team B's analysis. Then again, Team A can always argue that their style of argumentation is good for the event or some broader issue. It all depends. TL;DR, I would like you to keep things simple but I'm not going to tell you how to debate. That is up to you.

Evidence: One good piece of evidence beats 10 bad ones (I love hearing why your study’s methodology is best). You can't kick out of evidence if your opponent points out a turn or some other problem with the evidence. I'll accept paraphrased evidence but if team A provides full citations (names, dates, and credentials) while team B doesn't, and team A argues that their evidence should be preferred because they provided better citations, I will prefer team A's evidence.

Rebuttal: You must defend if you are giving the second rebuttal. From the rebuttal on you can paraphrase evidence you have already cited and I won't count it against you.

Summary: You don't have to extend pure defense. Line by line is fine but not preferred. I find it hard as a judge to keep every little part of the debate in my head. Grouping impacts and telling me why you're winning those impacts is a good way to get my vote.

Final Focus: Weigh your arguments. Asserting “we outweigh on scope probability and magnitude” is not weighing.

Pet Peeves (won't affect my decision but might affect speaks):

-don't give off-time road maps

-be polite in cross but don't waste time asking permission to ask questions

-don't start packing your items until after I'm done giving my post round analysis

-please ask any questions about my RFD or thoughts on the round but don't post round me

-don't ever run a meme case. Let's just spend the hour having a nice conversation instead

Connor Jolley Paradigm

1. Second speaking team cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal

2. Extend warrants as well as impacts

3. Be at least decently nice in cx

Experience: I debated for Millard North for 4 years

Tony Le Paradigm

-Assistant PF Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School, recently graduated from University of Nebraska-Lincoln (BS in Biochemistry)

-Debated 4 years in Nebraska circuit PF, competed at NSDA nationals, 4th year judging PF

-Speak as fast as you want to but I can only type so fast

-Run whatever i don't care but I am not knowledgable on progressive debate

-I usually browse the internet/shut my brain off during crossfires

-Second rebuttal does not have to rebuild if they don't want to but obviously respond to arguments at some point

-I don't write down card names

-Any evidence/analysis that wants to be extended must be mentioned in all speeches post rebuttal. So extend defense from rebuttal to summary

-I don't want to see your cards after the round

-Asking for evidence in round is fine but the bane of my existence is when teams take 5 minutes to find one card

-Links, impacts, and weighing please and not just card dumps

-I reserve 30s for genuinely amazing performances, but I will probably give most solid debaters 29.5

-You can ask me before round if there's anything else you should know about my judging style that was not written in my paradigm - the answer is no. You can ask me specific questions about my judging style but I have no substantive answers for broad questions

Eric Le Paradigm

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

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

Zachary Madsen Paradigm

I debated Nebraska Circuit Public Forum for four years at Lincoln Southwest High School. I've judged Nebraska Circuit Public Forum for two years.

I'm generally okay with speed. However, if you speak too quickly, then I can't guarantee that I will get everything on my flow.

Elaborate on your cards throughout the round. Simply listing off the author and year of your card won't do much for me, especially in the second half of the round. Also, give me reasons to prefer your cards over your opponent's. Otherwise, the preference is left up to me. Lastly, I will never call for a card at the end of the round.

If you want me to consider your framework it should be properly justified. Simply attaching it to the top of each speech isn't enough.

Second speaker rebuttal is not required to respond to attacks.

New evidence can be brought up in summary as long as its related to an existing argument.

I am more likely to vote for you if you can provide a big picture and tell a consistent, compelling story.

Be civil.

Sarah Maul Paradigm

Not Submitted

Preston McInelly Paradigm

Quick Bio

I am a licensed broker who currently works for the DOE, I am married and I did debate for several years with Millard West which ended in 2015 when I graduated. I was taught by Fred Robertson, now retired, and Aaron Schurevich, the coach for Millard South. I am also a student at Brigham Young University studying computer science and economics. I have judged PF for three years.


I am very much a flow judge and play most debates by ear. I don't enjoy shotgun argumentation but obviously if your opponents don't care I'll still flow your information. I very much enjoy when teams point out logical fallacies during the debate. I also enjoy arguments that are out of the box.

I will flow any speed but pf isn't meant to be something you jam information into so please remember you aren't in policy.

Finally, I expect responses to arguments, I will drop you if you just read of your case, read off your evidence and do not address the other arguement, that being said, if you take aff I will give you the burden of proof, and I will expect you to support the resolution, not just respond to the opposition.

Tayln Meyer Paradigm

Make the arg. good, fleshed out, and compelling.

Chris Powell Paradigm

I was a first speaker in Public Forum from 2014-2017 and competed Nebraska Circuit/Nat Circuit.

I expect the second team to defend in their Rebuttal.

Don't speed read.

Don't run counter plans for me.

Don't personally attack your opponents in hopes of gaining clout.

Please weigh the arguments in the round, especially in Summary/FF.

I highly recommend providing voters for me because my decision is 100% based off of whatever you give to me in the round.

Try to have fun.

Dustin Rymph Paradigm

I was debating when public forum first started, and I have been involved with it ever since. As such, I've tried to keep in mind the original spirit of PF while adjusting for what I feel are inevitable aspects of the current nature of the event.

-I think a good PF round should be able to be understood by any average person who reads a lot of news. I expect that an intelligent person, if paying close attention to the round, should be able to follow along while receiving a good understanding of subject material.

-I dislike lying. If it comes out that you are making up something that is clearly not inferable from your evidence, and you are called out on it, I will trust your interpretation of facts slightly less for the rest of the round.

-I am a PF coach, so I usually am versed enough in the topic to give a decent topic analysis. (If it's a foreign policy topic I'm probably not going to fall for BS, but if it's an economics topic you might be able to trick me.) It is okay to speak at a level of assumed basic facts about the resolution, but I will not give unexplained link chains and warrants very much weight.

-Speed is not preferred, but I can usually follow along, and it won't necessarily cost you. If you want to guarantee I catch everything on my flow, don't go too fast.

-Remind me of claim/warrant/impact structure in each speech. I expect robust explanations of these in constructive, and an incorporation of a brief summation of each argument from which you are trying to achieve impacts throughout the round. Simply repeating the names of cards without context might not register very heavily with me.

-I don't flow crossfire really, but I do pay attention to establishment of weighing mechanisms, definitions, moral playing fields, framework agreements, etc., and accept an agreement in crossfire as standing unless nullified in a following speech.

-Don't belittle your opponents personally, for any reason. I know debates get heated and that's ok, just make it about the arguments and not your opponent's intelligence.

-I am used to teams rebuilding in 2nd rebuttal, but it's not necessary if you aren't used to it.

-I get so bored during evidence exchanges. Please keep them necessary and brief. I will accept logical rebukes of your opponent's sources a lot of the time without you having to look at evidence.

-Frameworks need to be responded to, but if you just state it at the beginning of the round and then never mention it again until final focus, I'm probably not going to factor it very heavily into my decision.

-My biggest areas of knowledge from training or formal education are: Ecology, Foreign Policy, International Relations, World Religions, and Political Philosophy. One of my many jobs is being a market gardener of vegetables and flowers. I'm also an avid forager. I might be especially swayed by widespread geological impacts. I love a good pollinator collapse impact link chain; just terrifying.

-If, hypothetically, a round was tied in every way, I would be fine choosing a winner based on who delivered their arguments with more believability and inspiration. You almost certainly aren't going to lose for delivery, but I really appreciate it when somebody is debating like they actually care about what they are talking about.

Andrew Schettler Paradigm

-I take notes on the outlines of cases, only writing word for word when wording is important

-Flow is taken into account, but isn’t necessarily the only deciding factor

-If you talk too fast, I may miss what you say. Talk at a decent pace so I can follow along.

-I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the debate

-I expect the summary to establish the main points in the round (big picture)

-If evidence requires a date to be valid, the date should be read aloud

-Decorum is a deciding factor (especially interruptions and insults)

-Staying on topic is preferred, but I’m not rigid on that. Off topic information is material that has little to no relation or impact with the debate topic.

Kayla Sturges Paradigm

Not Submitted

Keith Tran Paradigm

Background: I did debate in PF for four years at Lincoln High School.

Debate how ever you want. I will try to be tabula rasa and evaluate what is in round. To help me make a good decision, I have compiled a list of things you should do in a debate round.

Things I like in a debate round:

1) Weigh arguments.

2) Extend cards, warrants, impact, or whatever you think will make you win the round. That being said, this is how I consider a good extension. Don't assume that I "get" your argument if you bring up a card name related to it. That is not how it works. I expect fully extension of your warrants.

3) Good strategy > extend everything

4) Second speaking team should plan on responding to the first rebuttal in second rebuttal.

5) If something is in final focus, then it must(most of the time) be in the summary.

I have linked great videos that explains the components of debate. Check these out in your free time.

Progressive Arguments:

I am inexperience with this but I am learning. Don't count on me for making the right decision.

Learn how to do a summary in debate.


Learn how to do Impact Calculus


The Human Condition and Debate


Alison Uecker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marlana Walla Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brodey Weber Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jarred Williams Paradigm

My name is Jarred Williams and I'm currently a student at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln. I graduated from Lincoln Southwest in 2017. I am a political science major and philosophy and English minor. In the fall of 2021, I'll be headed off to law school.


- Use all of your allotted time in each speech.

- Quote your sources directly, and then provide a brief explanation of what it means and how it works under your argument(s).

- Use your prep time.

Do Not's:

- Cut off your opponents during crossfire.

- Don't turn your summaries and final focuses into extended rebuttals. Rebuttals are used to address all points of clash in the round (effectively whittling down the round to the main points), summaries are used to "summarize" the main points of clash in the round and your argument and evidence you have to go along with those points, and the final focus is a persuasive type of speech used to explain to the judge why they'll be voting for you. This has been a trend I've seen steadily increase year after year, and frankly, it's incorrect.

Cameron Wilson Paradigm

Name: Cameron Wilson
School Affiliation: Millard West/Millard North
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 6
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0, I’ve judged a few tournaments of LD
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0
If you are a coach, what events do you coach?
What is your current occupation? Student

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery
I can only type 75 words per minute, so beyond a certain point I won’t be able to flow your speed, although I can hear it. For example if your case is 4.5 pages(12pt font, double spaced) odds are I’ll miss a flowing a little bit of it.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Tie up the most important arguments line by line, but other than quickly telling me why unimportant args are unimportant, leave them out.

Role of the Final Focus: Big Picture
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Definitely don’t bring up an argument in the final focus that you only ever mentioned in your case and say that it should be voted on. Carry them through most of the speeches, and if you had to drop something in summary, tell me why it’s okay (for example, quickly argue that you dropped it because you won it)

Topicality: I’ll treat it on a case by case basis. I like wild arguments that talk about how the resolution’s affirmation/negation has far reaching and unrelated impacts, but tie it back to the resolution. An example of non topicality for me is if the resolution was about gun control and you have a case that is completely about organ harvesting with zero mention of control.

Plans: I have no idea how this would ever come up. If you create a parallel plan to the resolution and say something like “instead of the arguing for the resolution we’re arguing for this plan”, I will allow the other team to just say you are being non-topical.

Kritiks: Not convincing in public forum, not interested in hearing it. Like if your case is a Kritik that says I need to vote for you to send a message to the national speech and debate association to instigate change, I’ll probably just ignore it all.

Flowing/note-taking: I try to flow literally every single point and argument made, but I can only type so fast. Sometimes if I miss something I’ll go up and edit the flow after your speech if I remember what you said. Giving speeches in order that you have flowed is very easy for me to follow and preferred.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: I didn’t know argument/style were in opposition to each other. I value argument I suppose, but if your style is vicious meanness or extreme mumbling then I’ll give horrible speaker points and maybe stop flowing.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: No, but in my experience most of the time second speaking team doesn’t cover both it means they’re going to drop a lot of their case and cede many arguments. It is highly highly recommended

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: Not unless they’re brought up in a speech. It should be easy to include them in a speech though—just very quickly summarize/remind me of what happened in the crossfire and I’ll put it on my flow.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here: I will intentionally naively believe a lot of evidence within reasonable grounds, in order to make teams address each others arguments.

Ian Wilson Paradigm

-- PF --

I would consider myself to be a "traditional" PF judge, if that helps. I flow everything, but you need to impact and explain. I expect the second speaker to respond to the rebuttal of the first speaker. I am good with speed and most other PF styles and tactics. Spreading is highly discouraged. I don't believe it's effective, good, or educational, and I may drop you on face. If you just read cards at me and don't impact them, don't expect me to weigh them. As well, if you only extend a card by saying "Johnson 18, war is bad, pull through" that puts it on the flow but doesn't give it a lot of weight.

I'm open and willing to hear most any argument as long as you can explain it well and back it up. I tend to give long winded RFDs, so if I get talking for a long time, don't hesitate to say something. Sometimes I forget how long I've been going on.

-- LD --

I don't judge LD often. I would probably be considered the more traditional in terms of LD, and my judging style will be similar to my PF judging. I will flow everything. The value seems(?) to be the most important things, so make sure you tie your arguments back to it. Ask me as many questions as you want/need to, I'm still learning LD. I will also not be insulted if you correct me on something or challenge me on something.

Andy Zhu Paradigm

Brown '21 | Lincoln East '17 | Email remaining questions to: a.a.zhu24@gmail.com

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round, just give me time to complete my ballot.

General notes:

- Be nice. I have no patience for people who are jerks. I will drop you, report you for being abusive, tell you in my oral critique, tattle to your coach, and take whatever other means I have available to me to ensure you're never rude in round again. Oh, and your speaks will be as low as they can possibly be.

- Debate how you normally debate. I'm open to everything, as there's a reason you got to where you are. I will never drop a debater or a team because I don't like their style of argument. I believe debate is an educational activity, not only for the students, but for judges as well. That means that we also need to continue to learn and adapt.


- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- Framework/Observations/Definitions: Don't run them unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't make the debate about the framework/definitions/whatever fluff you have at the beginning, this isn't what PF should be about. I will not vote on a framework just because it is there and is not utilized with your case. If the framework does come into play, however, I will reluctantly consider it. Finally, if both teams propose a framework, give me a good reason to prefer yours over your opponents'.

- Speed doesn't really matter, so long as your opponents and I can both understand you. To this point, if I can't understand what you're saying because of speed, I'll yell "Clear" at you. If I don't understand what you're saying because I don't think it makes sense, I'll look very puzzled at you and not be flowing for an extended period of time.

- I understand that debate is a game, but if you speak second and take prep after your opponents read their case, I reserve the right to deduct your speaks, or in out-rounds, pay less attention to your constructive.

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're done, end early. Rehashing what I already heard without giving your opponent a chance to respond to it isn't fair or strategic, and this will be reflected in your speaker points.

- I think it's extremely difficult for the second speaking team to win if they don't go back to their own case, but I have seen extremely talented teams pull it off. If the second speaker doesn't do some defense in rebuttal, that leaves the second summary speaker with 10 minutes of speeches to cover in just 2 minutes. If you want to go for this strategy, be my guest, just know that the path to winning on my ballot is paper thin in this scenario, and your summary speaker had better give the best speech of their lives.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I prefer big picture summaries. Start trying to narrow down the round into a few main arguments. If you must, fine, I'll try to evaluate "down their flow then down ours", but if you can cut a few arguments out that you deem unimportant, you'll only look better in my eyes.

Last updated: 2/2019