Hey everyone! I'm Aanya (ah-nyah) from Millard North and I'm a fourth-year varsity in LD. First and foremost, my pronouns are she/her/hers. I do both nat circuit and Nebraska Circuit. I'll honestly listen to anything as long as it's not problematic, but here are my preferences!

General in-round stuff

PLEASE INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN IF YOU DO ONE. My email is aanya.agarwal27@gmail.com

GIVE A TRIGGER WARNING IF YOU ARE READING ANYTHING PERTAINING TO

- sexual assault/harassment

- suicide/self harm

- anything else you may know to be upsetting or triggering

CX is binding, but I won't flow so be sure to say "Aanya this is really important" if you want me to take note of it

Sit, stand, dance, I don't care. Just make sure you're not being rude about however you're presenting

Speed

Come at me bro. I'm totally cool with 99% of spreading, but I'll shout clear twice if I'm behind. After that, I just won't flow. Make sure your tags are clear and slower than the actual card, start off slow, and BE CLEAR.

Framework

Please, for the love of god, don't read something you don't understand yourself. I will know if your coach/varsity wrote it for you, and I won't be happy (aka low speaks). I'm also comfortable with generic util, structural violence, governmental legitimacy, or any other frameworks that are read often on Nebraska circuit. I will evaluate the round based on the framework that is winning, so make sure you either a) extend your FW well or b) fit under your opponent's framework. If you do neither of those things, it's going to be extremely hard for you to win. Pleeeease debate the framework level. I love hearing framework debates and it's sad that they're becoming more and more rare in Nebraska LD. Y'all are novices so I don't expect you to read high-level phil, but I'm comfortable hearing Deleuze and Guattari, Kant, Nietzche, and any other authors that are explained well.

Contention-level

PLEASE HAVE OFFENSE! DEFENSE WINS FOOTBALL GAMES BUT OFFENSE WINS DEBATES! If you're winning framework but have no offense, you're gonna lose. Identity politics/oppression arguments are dope, so don't hesitate to read them in front of me. That being said, please don't turn the round into the oppression olympics. I really don't want to be an oppression olympics judge. If I'm forced to be an oppression olympics judge, both debaters' speaks will suffer . I also like hearing contentions that talk about recent events and I find prereq arguments very persuasive, so it wouldn't hurt to go for those. Also, make sure your extensions are clear. I really hate it when debaters just say extend and don't talk about the implications of the card. I'm cool with DAs and plans of any sort as well.

Ks

YAY Ks! I think Ks are super cool and also very strategic if ran well. MAKE SURE YOUR ALT IS EXPLAINED WELL. If you have a super awesome K but no impact analysis, you're going to find it hard to win. K before theory is a legit argument. Make it. I'm fine with identity politics, generic Ks (like the infamous cap K), and basically anything that's explained well.

T/Theory

DISCLAIMER FOR NOVIES: If you don't know what this is, ask your varsity. If your varsity doesn't know, come ask me and I'd be more than happy to teach you (because theory is gr8).

I evaluate theory at a higher level, and I default to competing interps (but will definitely listen to reasonability if you make a solid argument on it), DTD, fairness=education, give an RVI. Please (pretty please?) have voters. It's not a theory shell if you don't have voters. Also, please be considerate with younger debaters who obviously don't know what theory is/how it functions. You may win the round but your speaks will be very low (like a 26).

Tech>truth

Tricks

Not a fan, but I'll listen to them and vote off them if they're cold conceded.

Speaks

Will generally fall between the 27-29.5 range. If you get a 30, you probably gave some of the best speeches I've ever heard, so kudos. 26 means you have some serious issues that need to be worked out before you debate again. 25 and below means you owe someone an apology. Here's a general guide:

- Speaks will be good if you are clear and persuasive (aka good extensions, understandable spreading, both offense and defense, and arguments about framework)

- I'll bump your speaks +0.1 if you make a debate pun in round. No further explanation.

- I will legitimately give you a 20 if you're racist/sexist/homophobic/exclusionary in any other way. Debate should be an inclusive activity and I absolutely will not tolerate behavior that makes it anything else. If your opponent does this, DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL THEM OUT.

Also, I will not disclose speaks. Sorry?

TLDR; make good arguments, be a nice person, and HAVE FUN.

That's all folks! Millard North AA out

James Constantino

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS
My scale is essentially as follows:

· 30 – Perfection/deeply impressive.

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

· 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

· 27 - Average

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

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

CONGRESS

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

Gray Graves

Please add me to the email chain: graygraves3@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns.

Debate Experience:

High School

- Millard West (2015-2017) Lincoln Douglas

- Millard North (2017-2019) Policy

College

- UNL (2019-Present) NFA-LD (1 v. 1 policy)

I coach Policy/LD at Marian High School.

Misc.

I am fine with speed, but require clarity and slowing down on analytics and tags. I will say “clear” as many times as necessary, which is a signal to be clear and doesn’t necessarily require you to reduce speed.

I think that Disclosure is good in almost all instances. I will vote on Disclosure theory in most instances, when debated well, because of this.

"Extend (Author, Year)" is not sufficient for an extension. Please explain what you are extending; This does not always require a huge time investment, but the former example is always insufficient. Conceded arguments should be brought up if you want it to factor into the round/decision, but I have a low extension threshold in those instances.

Do not clip cards. It will never be worth it. If a tournament describes a process in the instance of clipping, I will adhere to that process. If not, clipping must be pointed out immediately after the speech. The team alleging that clipping has occurred must stake the round on this concern and provide audio evidence. If I witness clipping myself, I will stop the round. Skipping over a sentence, phrases or single words repeatedly is grounds for clipping. Clipping will result in a L and <26 speaks.

Tag-team CX is fine, but please do not control the entirety of your partner's CX.

No prep will be taken for flashing/emailing. Conversely, please do not steal prep time.

Offense holds more weight than defense. Terminal defense is possible, but there is a high threshold for this.

I generally am "tech over truth." Having said that although, some arguments can overwhelm tech through its validity, and some untrue arguments will never win you the round in front of me, no matter how techy you debate it. So, take my leaning toward "tech over truth" with some skepticism and just debate well.

K

Critical arguments are the majority of what I read during my junior and senior year. It is also my favorite type of argument to research. In High School, I read Queer Theory, Puar, Bataille, Semiocapitalism, Neoliberalism, Settler Colonialism, and various identity politics arguments. Please do not read a K you are unfamiliar with in front of me because of my argument history. I will hold the K to a high standard of explanation and contextualization. The best way to read the K in front of me is to spend adequate time contextualizing and fleshing out the links, explaining the solvency mechanism and examples of the alternative (especially if it’s a vague theoretical alternative), and answering the AFF’s framing.

Be cautious on contradictions between the K and any other off case positions you have. If you notice a contradiction between your opponent’s K and another argument they are making, it is better to point this out and flesh out the theoretical implications/impact, than to read a theory argument, like Condo Bad.

Framework

I enjoy this debate. I have significant experience debating both sides. I have an agnostic stance toward it as a judge; I will vote either way.

For the NEG team, please answer the K team’s turns (DAs). This is often the easiest route to my ballot for the K team, and often bad FW teams do very little work to address this offense. I prefer TVAs with a solvency advocate, but do not necessarily require it. TVAs that just say the USFG does the AFF (at least in the context of the more obscure and theoretical methods) are usually not persuasive.

For the K team, I would like a strategic and offensive counter-interpretation. You are likely to lose the debate if you can’t debate traditional FW offense under your C/I, or do not do sufficient work on proving why the turns/DAs mean I vote for you.

Topicality/Theory

I really love a well-done Topicality debate. I default to competing interpretations.

I am extremely unlikely to vote for RVIs in policy. I don't think that it is as unwarranted in LD.

I am not extremely familiar with CP theory outside of PIC theory, Conditionality theory, and Perm theory.

I am not a fan of LD’s frivolous theory trend and am unlikely to vote on these arguments. “Drop the argument, not the team” and reasonability can be fairly persuasive, especially against these types of theory shells. Good and well-tailored theory is encouraged. Outside of this, I rather judge the substance of the round.

DA/CP

I love a good debate with either one or both off-case position. Please read specific links on the DA.

Case

Please spend some time on case, especially K teams. Although it's said a lot in paradigms, it's very true that HS teams often do not utilize/leverage case arguments enough. I particularly engage the use of case arguments as leverage for other portions of the debate.

ROTB

I default to 'vote for the team that debated the best.' I will not be happy if your plan to win the ballot relies on limiting out offense through an arbitrary ROTB that got conceded. I much rather watch a Framing debate than ROTB debate.

Speaks

Generally, I will determine speaks through this loose model:

29-29.5: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

28-28.5: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

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

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

I debated for three years in LD at Norfolk.

If you’re cool with speed then i’m cool with it. I’m okay with just about any argument, if it has a warrant and you are winning the argument I will vote on it. Run what you are comfortable arguing. I’m okay with theory, but if you are running it unnecessarily I’m probably going to be annoyed. don’t be rude or hostile.

Intro:

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

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

Tech > Truth

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

Speed is fine.

Quick prefs:

theory/T/phil - 1

K - 2

LARP - 3/4

tricks - 4

Longer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add me on the email chain or if you have any questions: shriyasinghraghuvanshi@gmail.com

Hi! I am Shriya Singh (she/her/hers) and I debated at Millard North High School for 4 years in LD; I am currently studying political science and history at UNL. I am open to all types of arguments and case strategies as long as they are framed and executed well. With that being said, read what you are comfortable and can succeed with. :) <3

tldr:

- the way to my ballot is first and foremost impacting out the contention arguments and connecting them back to the framework

- I look at both contention and framework, you need to do work on both

- impacted out extensions made on the flow, rebuilding your case

- worst case scenario: i don't default to neg status quo right away, but the the aff needs to show me a glimmer of hope in order to overcome the neg

General

- please let me know before round, or asap if there is anything I can do to make the debate round more accessible to you. the activity is most fun when everyone can participate fairly and to their fullest extent!

- if there's a trigger warning (tw) in your case and your opponent asks you to not read it and that case/argument is still made in round you will immediately be dropped and reported. don't do it.

- speed: don't really care, go with a pace you're comfortable with and I'll shout out clear if I'm having trouble keeping up

- I pay attention during CX and what is said in CX is binding

- after your speech time has concluded you can finish up your sentence just don't try to finesse some args

- do not care about sitting/standing, eye contact/lack thereof, etc (your speaks are based off of your args and their quality and like if your being mean or something)

Flow

- please sign post and tell me what argument/contention/subpoint you are referring to and on what flow it is

- extensions: don't just say extend "xyz" please impact out the argument and tell me why explicitly I should care about that argument and what it does for the off/neg world

Actual Debate Stuff

Framework

- please collapse the values if you can

- weigh your framework against your opponents, why are you presenting me the better world under your framework?

- pre req. args, fw hijack, turns, try to not make them buzzwords, but they do add considerable weight in your favor when done correctly

Contention Level

- impact out your arguments, identify the effects of things, how you solve, how you do things better, etc, but please impact it out

- warrants should be used to contest arguments and rebuild your case (I don't usually call for evidence unless its going to be a deciding factor in the round)

- tie your contentions back to your framework

- cross apply, extend, and try to write the ballot for me, literally tell me why you are winning.

Phil/Tricks

- I understand basic level Phil and am responsive to it, but if you read it and execute it well its prolly fine, but please be clear in explaining your phil, I just don't know the dense stuff very well and ill get confused

- theory/tricks: clean extensions and implementation of them are very important, please refrain from hitting me with multiple offs for no reason

Kritiks

- open to all positions, please check with your opponent before round if it maybe triggering

- PLEASE WARRANT THE LINK, explain the link story and what your alternative does

- not particular over k over theory or vice versa, depends what happened in round, convince me why I should favor what you think matters more

- ROTB: you have the power to show me the potential of my signature, please do with appropriate impacts and application. Round goes to whomever wins the ROTB.

LARP/DA's

- CP's: needs to clearly solve and have a net benefit, DA over K , if not I will go for aff perm(s) and theory. the aff needs to show why the CP can't solve, beat the net benefit or show that the perm is superior

- DA's: I think they are legit, but you need to show why and how it links to the aff. I'll vote on non-uqniue args, but if not then I will go the aff's no link args, DA turn, or if they managed to outweigh on case v.s DA. impact clac is your best bet here

- condo: don't have an opinion against/in favor of it, so yeah go for ig. depends on how you manage to kick out of it and what happens after that. also remember to ask your opponent in cx the condition of the cp because I do hold the round accountable to cross-ex checks.

Theory/Topicality

- I think these args are most useful when they are used to confront actual abuse in round rather than to bully in the round, but I will listen to and vote on it but the aff needs to present a genuine reason as to why the off is present in the first place

- if its a wash I default to drop the arg, on theory I drop the debater on T, no RVI, creates bad norm/ethic, and competing interns

Disclosure

- don't care, but you should try to disclose if you can

Speaks

- I disclose speaks and then also try to give a reason why they are the way they are

- avg. is 28 and then up or down based off of round

- I do not discredit you for "lack of eye contact" or like "not standing" or "packing up early" do what you are comfortable with, its cool I literally do not care

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.

Ryan Wiegert- English Teacher/Debate Coach, Millard West

2 years judging PF, 1 year judging LD, 3 years judging Congress

Here is my overall paradigm, followed by changes for individual styles:

Speed of Delivery- I am strongly opposed to spreading and policy-style speed. While speaking at a clip is expected in a debate round, reading at “auctioneer” speeds occludes communication, games the system, and is frankly just irritating. I won't weigh anything I don't clearly hear.

Civility/Decorum- I absolutely expect politeness and civility in debate. You might still win the round, but I will be harsh on speaks.

Role of the judge/Meta- My role as a judge is to sign the ballot. That's all.

Kritiks- I usually just straight-up drop a k. I've made exceptions, but I would seriously recommend running an alternate case or using a strike on me.

---Specific Style Paradigms---

Congress:

While Congress has more of a delivery component than other debate styles, it still needs to involve debate. I need evidence, I need clash. After the initial authorship/first negation and maybe the first aff/neg exchange, the delivery style should be primarily extemporaneous and needs to address prior speeches directly. I grade repetitive/reheat speeches pretty harshly, unless they are summary/crystallization speeches. I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse, so when it's time to move the question, move it.

Public Forum:

I definitely subscribe to the idea that PF is supposed to be lay-accessible, and I encourage debaters to treat me like a lay judge despite the fact that I'm a coach. I'm not a fan of trying to win on technicalities and shenanigans.

I drop kritiks, plans/counterplans/topicality and any changing to the wording of the resolution.

The team that speaks second needs to address both the first team's case and rebuttal. This makes up for the advantage of having the last word in the round.

Extending your arguments is critical, and you have to extend them. I'm not going to do it for you. By the same token, if your opponents drop an argument, you need to call that out.

I like my summaries line by line. The final focus needs to include voters.

I don't flow cross-examination. That exchange is for the debaters to help develop the speeches which follow.

I do not weigh new arguments introduced in grad cross or later.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I tend to prefer traditional cases to the weird stuff. You can still win with the weird stuff, but you need to make sure I understand it.

Policy Style Arguments: I will drop you if your opponent runs even a basic LD style argument. If you want to do Policy debate, there's a whole division of the tournament for just that.

Lincoln-Douglas is the style of debate where I will accept theory and philosophy. Debaters in LD are not required to provide implementation.

I do not flow cross-examination in LD. Those exchanges are for you in preparation for the rebuttals to follow.

The aff debater cannot use the 2AR to "make up" for dropped arguments in the 1AR. The neg debater cannot introduce new arguments in the NR.

Don't speed. I cannot stress this enough. I won't flow what I don't understand.

I will drop you if you change even a single word of the resolution. I've seen this on cases lately and I'm not here for it. If you want to change the nature of the argument, you need to do that in framework.

The way to get my ballot is to show me how your value and criterion would improve the status quo, even if your better world is hypothetical.

I'm not a fan of trying to win on technicalities.

Dropped arguments need to have actual weight in order for me to consider voting on them.