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.

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.

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.

The primary item I look for is quality. Quality of the overall speech, how sound the arguments, and how effectively time is used. I am not a fan of speed reading as I feel the impacts are not properly emphasized. The next component I look for is the impact itself. Sources must be credible and unbiased, but then the impacts must be properly emphasized and analyzed.

Debate Experience:

4 Years at Lansing High School

3 Years at University of Nebraska- Single-person policy.

Past Graduate Assistant for the University of Nebraska debate.

Head Coach at Lincoln NorthStar for 3 Years

3L in law school. Education Law and Policy.

My email is dikecolin@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain OR do a speech drop.... tbh I prefer speech drop at this point in my career. It is much simpler.

Few things before I go into specifics:

1. Clipping will lose you the round and any chance you had at getting a speaker award

2. Disclosure is always good and necessary. This does not guarantee you a ballot if you are losing on the standards debate, but it should tell you that I am very sympathetic to the education claims.

3. DO NOT be an ass. You don't look cool and will not be rewarded.

4. If the opposing team drops a DA or something that is obviously a round winner- do not waste my time. Just extend the dropped argument and sit down.

5. Go as fast as you you want. Just make sure that you are CLEAR and you are SIGN POSTING between cards...... see how I accented those with font and you read it in your brain with a different tone..... do that with your voice on tags and dates.

6. Arguments that I will not find appealing-

-Nuclear terrorism.....like who is giving them the nuke...and how are they developing them? Also, I'm just skeptical of underlying assumptions from people reading Islamic terrorism bad.

-Death good

-Wipeout

-Spark

-Bad impact turns (Racism good, Warming good)

7. Things That Annoy Me:
A) Flowing off the speech doc, then answering cards that weren't read, etc
B) Responding to blippy 2ac theory args without a warrant (e.g., "no neg fiat, voting issue") FOR FORTY FIVE SECONDS!!!
C) Reading un-highlighted cards.

---------------------------Crowe Warken (NDT)---------------------------------

If you are from NFA-LD. Do not read this. Its not for you.

I am a new judge to NDT. A few things:

1) Speed: You all do not fall under point 5 above- Go slower on tags (IDC about the speed you go through the card text). You should probably be going 50%-60% speed on T/Theory debates (the same speed you go on tags). Yes, that's annoying, I apologize. Also- perhaps a hot take- I think flashing analytics and T blocks is good. If you pre-wrote it and it is the best version of your argument, you should not be afraid that the other team understands your arg and should not hope to win on dropped args from speed. The purpose of this addendum is that I am very willing to be lenient on you going faster on T/Theory args if they are in the doc and I can refer back to them. I am talking 75% speed max.

2) If your 2NR/2AR is not starting by writing my ballot, you are doing it wrong. That is not to say that this narrows and precludes other offenses on the rest of the flow, but it does frame the first things I look at when making my decision AND helps you clarify what you think your route to the ballot is for me. The alternative is you charging the mound on me for not seeing your obscure route to the ballot which isn't rad.

3) My paradigm for judging is not going to be nearly as refined as your seasoned NDT vet. or your ordinal 1 pref. My RFD is probably not going to flow like an elegant story that wraps up every issue in the debate. As such, please feel free to ask questions after the round and I will always give you the thoughts I have.

***********************************HIGH SCHOOL LD*****************************************

I come from a policy background. Use that to your advantage. If you want to read value/criterion, you need to have specific instructions on how I weigh impacts under the value.

If you are interested in going for a really dense philosophy argument, I am going to be more work as a judge because of my relative newness to LD. Make sure you are impacting out all the claims you are going for. I also am just not a fan of super old philosophers from the 1600s. It seems to be more of a race to obscurity than actually doing "philosophical" debate as debaters indicate.

STOP ASKING IN CX TO "SUM UP YOUR POINTS." It defeats the whole point of CX. This goes for every format, but it is the worst in LD.

I am all for us sharing evidence. You should always be ready to share your evidence with the other team. If you don't, I am very easily persuaded by arguments saying you can't prove the truth or falsity of the other teams arguments.

If you are reading a framing argument that says that there is a specific burden for the aff/neg (we only have to defend one subsidy is bad, the aff has to repeal all subsidies to meet their burden, ect.), then you need to win standards to win this argument.

Speaker points can be increased if you separate the framing debate from the case debate- (put them on their own sheet of paper). I flow debates this way and deeply appreciate when debaters do this because the clash is all in one place.

Please don't reach to saying an argument is abusive if you don't have another answer. Most of the time it isn't abusive, you just haven't thought of an answer yet.

Neg Kritiks in LD need to have more work done in the 1NC than in policy. Just reading the link, impact, and alt in the 1NC creates super late-breaking debates that always favor the neg and creates poor clash because the aff has to respond to 6 minutes of functionally new offense in as 3 minute 2AR. To that end- I think any representations, Role of the ballot/judge, and alt solves the aff arguments should be in the 1NC. Not doing this substantially lowers my willingness to lean neg on theory objectification (Condo, floating piks bad, etc.)

Underviews with theory preempts are fine, but YOU NEED TO SLOW DOWN. I have to have time to flow the arguments. I generally believe that any prewritten theory should be 1) Flashed and 2) disclosed.

Please read the rest of this paradigm- the things I think in policy that are explained generally transfer to LD- specifically on the theory stuff.

*************************************Policy Debate********************************************************

**Topicality vs. Plan Text

I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating topicality debates. However, this isn’t permission to blow through your 1NC interp and 2NC blocks as fast as you can. The fastest way to get a decision that you don't like is to poorly sign post between arguments and not give me at least a little pen time. Specifically, slow down on nuanced arguments that intersect multiple standards (Bi-directionality controls ground because.....). My views on T primary revolve around the following:

1. T is always a voter and never a reverse voter!

2. Reasonability is a way to determine the sufficiency of the aff’s counter-interp; not whether or not the aff is “reasonably topical.” Delete the phrase "reasonably topical" from your vocabulary. Too many times in high school debates, 1AR and 2AR’s do a poor job of extending reasonability. Saying “good is good enough” is not an argument. You need to give reasons why reasonability is preferable to competing interpretations.

3. Contextualized interactions between different standards (ie: limits controls the direction of ground, or precision determines the lit base for which a team derives limits offense, etc.) needs the most explanation for me, however I find them very compelling.

**T-USfg

I am ok with this argument vs non-topical affs. Reading it is by no means a silver bullet and sometimes a counter-method goes further, but dont feel like you should or should not read this argument.

As far as defense goes I generally am under the impression that T is a floor not a ceiling and discussions of aff’s internal links can happen via topical versions of the affirmative. TVA and switch side debate are defensive arguments and must be paired with a net benefit to win!

**Theory

I love theory debates. The fact that you can debate about the rules of debate makes it the best game out there. I am ok with almost any theory argument if you have a justification for why it produces good education.

Grain of salt- theory debates require the fastest typing and flowing because it is frequently your own words and has the fewest cards. If you want me to understand, you want to slow down to like 75% so I can get everything on my flow.

Generally, condo is good, and delay CP's are abusive

Fairness is a sliding scale. Even if you think I might err neg on condo in a debate with one conditional advocacy, that default level can be reduced by things like multi-plank conditional CP's, CP's with no solvency advocate, etc.

I am also a big fan of whole res v/ plan text theory args in LD.

**CP

I am a big advocate for nuanced and developed counterplans, and believe it is one of the most strategic ways to subsume aff offense. I default to sufficiency framing until told otherwise. If there is no clear victor in the theory debate I will usually default negative.

I generally think that CP’s should be textually and functionally competitive but feel free to tell me otherwise. I tend to lean negative on theory and think that most objections are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

**DA

I’m a fan. Try to read specific links, because I am of the opinion that generic links are usually punished by link thumpers. The 2NR should do impact calc and make turns case arguments.

I am willing to vote on zero percent risk of a link if you clarify that there is zero percent of a link with a justification.

**K

I am always open to K’s but not very familiar with all of the literature. Please refrain from assuming I know what you’re talking about or using buzz words. “death good” K’s or any other assorted shenanigans are not compelling and is a poor strategy for earning my ballot. I think the K should have specific links to plan action rather than to the status quo or links of omission. I think permutations are very compelling against Ks that are not contextualized to the affirmative’s policy. Alternatives need to be clearly explained. I will not do the work for you. One of my biggest frustrations is that some judges seem to front kids alt solvency because the neg tosses around big words. I am not that type of judge; the negative should be responsible for defending the actualization/implementation of the alt.

K's that I have read and have a good understanding of- Militarism, Securitization, Identity (Queerness, Anti-Blackness, Fem, ect.) Spanos, Pan, Warming Reps, Terror Reps, Adaptations of Heidegger, Anthropocentrism.

K's that I am harder to sell on because my knowledge of the lit base is low: Deluze/Guattari, Spacialization, Semio-Cap,

K's that I just really do not like at all: Baudrillard, Battallie, a lot of abstract post-modern philosophy.

IMPORTANT I talk loud. Im not yelling at you. I have diagnosed hearing loss and I don't hear how loud I am. If it is too loud or you think I am mad at you please ask. I will not be offended. I use a transcribe app to help me hear the speeches. I am not recording you, I am using it to help myself here you better

If you are not from Nebraska feel free to read through or scroll to the bottom for other information.

I am a Hastings High graduate and for those that know Hastings know that we are very traditional in style. For those that do not know, here is what that means for me.

1 - I don't like speed. The speed that was going on when I was debating is nothing like the speed now a days. I do not follow speed very well. If I look at you with a confused or with a blank look and I am not flowing then you need to slow down. I can't vote for a side that was given so fast I can't even hear it. This is my second job and a hobby of mine, which means I am not going to listen to speed on my downtime to try to keep up with you. Besides, nothing about speed is going to prepare you for your future. In the adult world the content matters not how many words per minute you can speak. Debate is a educational experience. No one gets education with speed.

2 - Do not be so focused on your side and your case that you do not clash with your opponent. Clashes are a good thing.

3 - If you are doing LD then do LD. Do not give me policy in LD! Same with PF. If you like policy that much then go do policy. There are different types of debate for a reason so there is no need to combine them. I will never vote for a crazy everything leads to nuclear war and the end of the world with the exception of the opponent dropping the contention. Again debate is to be educational and if you take away from that education by running a bizarre case you will not be voted for.

4 - I am not ok with flex prep time. If you want to ask questions then ask during CX, not prep. The exception to this is if you are asking to see evidence.

5 - Unless there is a medical condition preventing you from standing then you need to be standing during speeches and CX. The exception to this is grand cross in PF.

6 - Debate prepares you for your future. For many of your futures, you will need to be able to act and look professional. Please start doing so now. This includes professional vocabulary.

7 - If you are using a computer/desk on top of desk/stand/etc.then make sure you are not hiding behind it. I want to see you not just look at the back of the computer/stand/desk/etc,.

8 - Give me clear concise voters. State voter one, voter two, and so on.

9 - I want to know impacts and big pictures. I like it when you show why this matters, what will happen in the scenarios you are presenting, and why I should care.

10 - I will buy almost any argument as long as it is logical, and not an argument mentioned in #3. Do not be portraying tax cuts lead the end of the world. No amount of links you can have will ever convince me of this. Keep common sense in mind.

11 - I do not discount any theory just because in the real world it is not 100% achievable. If you can explain your theory well enough and it is logical and considers real-world possibilities then I will not be opposed to it.

12 - I am not focused on 100% solvency. So if that is your only voter you might not win.

13 - I do prefer cases with both a criterion and a value instead of single standard. I have not seen a single standard run well so far. I do not automatically discredit single standard; but if you would look at the Lincoln Douglas textbook on the NSDA website, it talks about cases being formed with a value and a criterion. Please keep that in mind.

14 - Do not argue after the round with me. I will drop your speaker points as it is very rude and offensive to the me as your judge, your opponent, and to any observers. You can ask me questions about the round and why I decided the way I did, but arguing with me over it will not change my decision ever. I will also be reporting any rudeness and arguing with me to your coach. Be mindful of this.

15 - Congress - I like clear contentions and knowing when you are going from one contention to another. I also like clash and want to hear you directly refute other people.

CO -

I don't have much for CO on here. I haven't judged much for CO so as I get more experience judging in your state I will add more. My paradigm does update as I judge more rounds and are more familiar with how it is ran in your circuit.

RoadMap everything. Signpost everything. If you don't know how to do so then ask your coaches.

Give me voters. votes is something that isn't just LD its something that PF needs to have as well. Tell me why I should vote for you. Give concise voter 1, voter 2, etc.

PF- PF is all about current events. its about the real world and what will actually help change the real world. I want to know big pictures. I want to know what the impact of what you want to do or not do is. How will this effect the world we live in. I want logic and no huge jumps in logic. If you cant reasonably tell me how one thing will lead to another don't waste our time. I also want to know how this will work with current laws and current political situations. is this partisan or will it work on its own?

LD- LD needs to have a value and a criterion. your value is what you uphold as the most important thing ever, your criterion is your roadmap to how you will achieve your value. You need to have both. One does not work well without the other.

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!

I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln for 4 years. I have competed on the National policy circuit during my last two years of highschool on a regular basis. I am currently the assistant coach at Lincoln Southeast high school where I coach Policy, LD, with some PF and Congress. I am most familiar and comfortable with progressive LD and more Traditional Policy; however I will listen to almost anything if it is explained and argued well.

If there is an email chain, add me: dfolkert@nebrwesleyan.edu

LD:

-I prefer contention level debate over standards debate, so any effort to consolidate the standards debate would be much preferred.

-I default to tech over truth

-I encourage creativity with K's, DA's, and CP's to be run within LD, as long as they are run correctly and give me a reason for why that type of position is justified.

Policy:

K aff vs Policy aff: When I was debating, I stuck to traditional policy debate with topical policy aff's over K affs, therefore I prefer to see that type of debate. I prefer to hear a well-warranted and thought out policy aff's over a jargon heavy K aff that provides no justification outside of "the USFG is bad" or the "structure is flawed". I understand and value the importance of an applicable K aff to the topic, but as a general principle I am more persuaded by a policy aff, especially in Nebraska when unfortunately a Policy Aff is rarer then a non-topical K aff.

DA's/ CP: I love to see a great CP and DA combo to an aff over a 1-off K in the 1NC. I feel like a good CP and DA is undervalued in policy debate currently, and would love to see them make a come back. Therefore, from a neg strategy perspective, I will find a team reading an applicable CP over a generic K (such as cap, imperialism, anti-blackness, identity politics, set col, etc.) more persuasive.

K: Again, I am not the biggest fan of 1-off K's in the 1NC, however I do believe K's have a place in a debate when in conjunction with other off-case positions. If you plan on reading a K, either A. read other off case positions such as T or DA's, or B. if you do read a 1-off K, PLEASE do case work. Show me how the K interacts with the aff by indicting the solvency of the aff with the K in the 1NC or turning it, etc. For the K itself, I prefer more pragmatic alts over vague Utopian ults. I am a fan of kicking the Alt and using the K as a linear DA.

T: I love a great T debate, as do most judges! However, key word 'great'. Reading shells in the 1NC and 2AC are fine, but after those speeches I do not want to hear shell extensions, I want to hear real analysis and comparison between your interp and your opponents. I default to competing interps over reasonability.

FW: Against K aff's, I want rather see a good FW debate over a K vs K debate. Again, I would rather see real analysis over shell extensions after the 1NC and 2AC. For me to pull the trigger on FW, I really need a TVA. As I did traditional policy debate over K debating high school, you need to go a little slower on FW and explain arguments more as I am not as familiar with them as I am with more traditional theory and T arguments.

If you have any specific questions about arguments, please ask me before round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bio

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate consistently since 2007, and have limited experience judging Student Congress. I earned a Bachelors Degree in Political Science with a minor in English in 2011. Over my adult life, I have worked as a debate coach, Mentor for the Highly Gifted, filing clerk, copywriter, Communications Director/Archivist, and currently serve as a Website and Communications Technician for Lincoln Public Schools. I point all this out to say that I have spent my life in the field of spoken and written communication, using skills that I have developed in debate.

General Notes

I continue to judge debate because I truly believe that the skills and habits that students can develop in debate have an application in the real world and that they can learn and experience new ways of thinking and fairly evaluate all sides of an argument. That being said, I am typically regarded as a fairly traditional judge, and I emphasize clarity, organization, and topic knowledge in the students that I judge. My work in web design and communications has taught me that a simple, clear structure will help your audience understand you and limit misunderstandings, so doing that is always a pretty big plus for me. I tend to be on the harsher end of speaker point distributions, with 26 (out of 30) being average in my eyes.

I strive to be open to all forms of argument, but both I and your opponent need to understand them to in order to have effective debate.

I will not tolerate the use of profanity in round. If you wouldn't use it in the classroom, don't do it in front of me.

I will disclose my thoughts on the round after I submit my ballot. I request that you refrain from talking about the round until I make my decision, and that you at least make a show of pretending to take notes during the oral critique. I do not disclose speaker points.

Please figure out how to share your cases/cards quickly and efficiently over email, flash drive, paper or whatever. I've had far too many rounds recently where this has become a major timesink and nothing makes me grouchier then watching you fumble with technology for five minutes in the middle of a round.

Speed

I have been less accepting of speed the more I have spent time in the workforce and have found that speaking quickly is a habit that practically everyone around me does not appreciate. I will try to follow your arguments the best I can, but I will not yell clear, but will likely stop flowing if I feel that I cannot effectively follow your argument. I do not want the speech doc, unless I need to address an evidence or ethical concern. Your role as a debater is to communicate cleanly and clearly, and you should not rely on me reading a document to understand what you are saying.

Standards

I believe that a strong standards debate is an effective way to center cases around a focal point and build up writing and speaking skills that can be used in the future. That said, I am open to most forms of standards/framework, as long as they are explained and I am told how they interact with whatever your opponent is providing as well. If things are left vague, I will likely make a decision that neither of us will like.

Theory

To be blunt, I have very little experience with theory arguments, and like most arguments, I will strive to be open to them, but they need to be explained.

Kritiks/Performance

Once again, I have little experience with these kinds of cases, but have enjoyed them in the past when they are run well. Like any other argument, however, I expect you to clash with your opponent, and explain to me how you interact with your opponent's arguments in the round. Role of the ballot is a vital part of these cases for me, and it had better be well warranted, explained, and extended or else I am likely to drop your entire case.

Speaking:

-I give speaker points entirely on performance, not argumentation.

-Focus on clarity. I can't flow it if I can't understand it.

-Don't speed read. Faster than conversational is fine, but only if you're enunciating very clearly.

-Don't assume I understand jargon or obscure philosophical terms. Give clear definitions and don't muddle the debate with pedantry.

Argumentation:

-Debate is a contest of logic. It is a game about who can best communicate and defend a complex perspective using logic and facts. Do not change the assumptions of debate to suit your purposes. The round must be resolutional. Do not run Kritiks or metadebate theory (unless your opponent is being abusive).

-I will weigh contentions depending on which provided framework is most prominent for the round. You do not lose the round because you drop your framework; it's perfectly acceptable to conceptually combine frameworks or have them subsumed. I love it when debaters agree on what the standards should be.

TOC 2024: I have mostly judged nat circuit Policy this year (and especially this semester), so I have not judged on this current topic and have not judged circuit LD this year. As such, I am not the most in touch with circuit LD norms. That said, I did judge some high-level varsity LD tournaments first semester. Additionally, I have coached and debated on a lot of foreign policy topics over the years and have a personal interest in Middle East politics (ie I read about it in my free time). So make of all that what you will when filling out prefs.

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

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

PGP: they/them

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

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

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

Overview for all events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD

Argument ratings

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

• Performance: 10 out of 10

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

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

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

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

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

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

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

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

The most important specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short:

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

Not so short:

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

See below for in-depth on different arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Other basics:

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

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

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

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

Argument specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

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

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

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

Framework and theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans:

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

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

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

Speed and delivery:

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

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

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

PF

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

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

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

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

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

Overview for PF

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

Truth vs tech:

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

Speed:

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

Other PF specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum: I make my decisions based on the presentation and content of the round.

1. Be a funnel! Be an *effective* funnel. Take stock after each round of what the most important arguments were. Slowly narrow the debate to one or two issues that I should vote on. And then convince me that you won the debate. Don't speed through six arguments in your final focus and expect me to give them all weight and attention.

2. Don't drop arguments. If you want to pull it through the round - mention it in every speech.

3. PF is a layperson event! Sell your arguments to the average person. PF is a practice in persuasion.

4. Understand your case. Make sure I understand your case. This includes speaking at a pace that allows me to flow your arguments. If it doesn't make it on to my flow - I am not voting on it.

5. Be thorough with your evidence. It will not hold weight in the round if you do not tell me who said it and when they said it.

6. Act professionally. This is great practice for the "real world". Be courteous.

Congress:

1. Make sure your speeches are applicable to the language of the bill/resolution! I want you to touch on the actual impact of the legislation in each speech! The underlying social issues matter but the actual text of the legislation matters more.

2. I want to see actual debate! Speeches that feel like an island will get lower scores. Interact with the speeches of your peers. Don't just reference their arguments, debate them. The more clash the better!

3. I look for generally active participation! If you give a speech or two but don't engage in questioning that will impact your overall rank.

4. Be very cautious of your language when speaking about disenfranchised populations. Be respectful, use person first language, don't tokenize diverse identities for emotional appeal, etc. (Some examples from this season: No person is illegal. People with disabilities are capable humans. People who are incarcerated still deserve human rights.)

5. Lastly, have fun with it and be conversational! The most persuasive speakers are those that don't read from their screen.

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

I have 7 years of experience in Lincoln Douglas. Limited experience in public forum and congress. I would consider myself a traditionalist, emphasizing a strong connection between standards and contention level arguments. I can handle a decent rate or speed but I will not flow if you are unintelligible; you can make logical arguments without having to spread.

I am an open-minded judge, willing to hear a wide variety of arguments. Arguments need a logical basis while not being straw-man. Theorists I am most well-versed in are John Rawls, Thomas Hobbes, and several other political theorists. I have a degree in political science, sociology, and public administration. If students make arguments that are false in these areas, I will give little to no weight to them. I will always inform on these mistakes though.

Email: matthewmatuszeski@gmail.com

Experience- I debated for 2 years for Millard North High School in LD, and I qualified for nationals my second year. I also debated for 1 year in college for UNL in NFA LD and also qualified for nationals. As a debater, I primarily ran kritikal stuff, or policy style(LARP) positions. That being said I can follow pretty much any argument you make so long as you explain it.

General Evaluation- I evaluate through framework/framing first before substance, I default to comparative worlds where I weigh the net desirability of the affirmative or negative unless a debater wins truth testing. I look to the flow when deciding rounds, I lean more tech over truth in evaluation. I presume negative unless given a reason to presume affirmative. I will listen to any argument made so long as it is not intrinsically harmful ie racism or sexism good.

Speed- I can flow pretty much anything you throw at me so long as you are CLEAR. I will yell clear/slow if I can't understand you a couple of times, but anything I don't get during your speech is on you.

K's- I enjoy hearing Kritiks when they are run well. I am pretty well versed in most K literature especially pomo and queer theory such as Deleuze, Baudrillard, Paur etc. A Kritik should have a link, impact, alternative, and in most instances a framework/ROB. If you have pre-fiat impacts you need to justify why they come before other offense.

Phil- I am less familiar with more heavy syllogistic debate, but I can follow so long as you explain how it functions cohesively.

LARP- I am familiar with policy-oriented arguments and enjoy listening to them. That being said you still need to win framework (or impact under your opponents) for your to impacts matter.

Theory/T- I will listen to theory and other procedural arguments and have voted on them in the past, that being said they are not my favorite to hear. I don’t automatically up layer any procedural argument, you have to warrant out why your procedural impacts come first. T is fine, it’s also not my favorite thing to hear, but I have voted on it many times and think it’s a strategic argument.

Speaks: I try to average a 28.5, anything higher I think you will break anything lower I think you won’t. The only instance I will ever give a 30 is if there is nothing I can think of that you could have done better, this is a rare instance. If you are rude during round or after, I have no problem tanking your speaks so don’t be an ass.

I debated Policy in high school, but now most often judge PF and LD. That being said, I'm a huge fan of almost anything related to/taken from policy. I've always considered myself a much better judge than I ever was a competitor. I'm open to evaluating almost* anything, and will vote on pretty much anything that is defined as a voting issue during the round. I prefer to not have to do a lot of work at the end of the round, so make sure to make everything clear by the end of it. Strike up a conversation with me before the round and I can explain this sort of thing more clearly to ya'll.

I tend to evaluate framework first, then case.

Do not have your coach come into the room, ask the other competitor/team to disclose, and then leave the room with them to prep against them. I will be upset and it will not look good on you.

I like to give lots of feedback at the end of the round, and explain my decision as fully as possible, so if you need to feel free to cut me off.

*don't be purposefully offensive/edgy

Not actively coaching anywhere at this time. I typically judge about 8 tournaments a year split between LD and Policy.

I have 2 years of high school LD debate, 2 years of high school policy, and 2 years of college parli & LD experience. I coached every debate event in Nebraska over the course of 10 years in various Nebraska high schools. I'm comfortable judging all events, but the paradigm is oriented towards LD and Policy debaters. Absolutely feel free to ask me questions before the rounds about my judging practices.

Speed - This will be challenging in the digital debate era. I would recommend starting at 75% of your top speed and working your way up. I will call clear if I can't hear you (either due to speed or due to technical issues). The most important thing if you want to speed read in front of me is that you MUST be organized. Number or label your arguments, clearly indicate when you are moving to the next flow/case, etc. and use those references as the debate continues.

Fiat - I handle this different in LD and Policy. The construct of policy debate created the concept of fiat and theory much more developed. I will evaluate arguments about how fiat isn't real or doesn't matter in policy debate, but my default paradigm is that fiat exists in every policy round. The opposite is true of Lincoln Douglas debate where I do not believe that fiat exists by default. If you choose to, for example, read a counter plan in LD against a traditional values case, the burden will be on you to bridge the theory gap and prove that fiat should exist in LD.

Pronouns: any

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Southwest and Parliamentary at American University, and have experience judging LD, PF, and Parli. Professionally, I’ve worked most recently as a chemist and environmental health scientist.

GENERAL NOTES

I debated and now coach/judge debate because I truly enjoy the activity and think it provides excellent educational opportunities for students with a variety of interests and backgrounds. This isn’t my space but yours; please run whatever arguments that interest you and make you comfortable. The following notes are based on my aptitudes as a judge, but I don’t ‘dislike’ any forms of argumentation that are well warranted, clearly explained, and presented effectively.

Note on Trigger Warnings

A trigger warning is a verbal warning prior to the presentation of material that could be psychologically damaging (or triggering) to individuals who have experienced trauma. This warning allows individuals who may potentially be triggered to prepare themselves so they can actively participate in the debate. I believe that debate should be a safe and understanding place for all participants and believe that trigger warnings must be included by any debater who chooses to include graphic material of any kind, including but not limited to detailed descriptions of: violence based on gender, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Refusing to provide TWs for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points (see scale below).

SPEED
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s not mutually exclusive with clarity. I will not yell “clear” but an observant debater will find that I’ve stopped flowing and am looking up at them with a face of terror and/or confusion if I’m unable to understand their spread. If these non-verbal cues are ignored, the debater is responsible for any arguments I was unable to flow, which will not be weighed in subsequent speeches.

STANDARDS
I was never a big standards debater, so if your standards can be easily collapsed to a central weighing mechanism, please do so. If not, standards debate must be centered on the unique qualities of the standards themselves rather than a debater’s ability to meet the established standard (‘I achieve best’). Those are case arguments. Apply them to the case. I will choose the standard that is best warranted and explained as an appropriate mechanism to evaluate the impacts of the round.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
If you are running theory as a time suck, and it is obvious to everybody in the room (it probably is), I’m going to be annoyed at you and I probably won’t vote on it. However, I will vote theory/topicality if argued well for legitimate reasons. These are arguments I’m much less familiar with, so if you choose to make them it would be wise to take your time explaining the violations and implications clearly.

KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE
If you’re interested in a critical argument, 100% go for it. Make sure all the components are clearly present and explained. A clear role of the ballot is definitely important. Kritiks and performance debates are great because they usually allow for a greater diversity of arguments, but I also expect some level of authenticity with your advocacy. Do not spread a narrative. Do not drop a narrative in the 1AR. If you are using another person’s lived experience in a competitive atmosphere it is expected that you are respectful of that experience.

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

30

Perfect

Debater displays clear understanding of the topic and in-round arguments, case is presented not merely effectively but exceptionally. Way to go, super star!

29

Excellent

Debater effectively presents a well-developed case, fully utilizing time in speeches and cross examination. Speeches are well-organized and any issues in clarity are minor.

28

Good

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally well-developed. Debater fully utilizes their time and speeches are well-organized, though there may be some issues with clarity.

27

Average

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally developed sufficiently. Debater doesn’t fully utilize their allocated time. Speeches are generally signposted and easy to follow, though there may be some issues with clarity and organization.

26

Below Average

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions or poorly developed arguments, disorganization is distracting, and speech style/speed is difficult to understand. Cross examination is used for clarification questions only.

25

Poor

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions and poorly developed arguments, and is frequently difficult to understand due to speaking style/speed. Speeches are severely under time.

24 and below

Offensive

Debater is blatantly rude/disrespectful in or after round, uses graphic depictions of violence without utilizing TWs. Being a poor orator is not alone enough to receive a score below a 25.

NOTE: Points will be deducted, regardless of in-round performance, for debaters who argue with a decision post-round or pack up their belongings before the round and oral critique are concluded. This is disrespectful to your judge, your opponent, and the team you represent.

Feel free to ask any specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round!

Millard West '14, University of Nebraska-Lincoln '18, Head coach at Burke.

She/Her/Hers pronouns

From 2011-2014, I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater in a very traditional Nebraska circuit. I have very little experience with circuit (policy-style LD) debate, but am willing to learn as long as the debater:

- does not speed, a brisk pace is preferred. Enunciate/slow down for author names and contention taglines.

- limits circuit jargon

- please no T unless ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or I will roll my eyes at you. Especially paragraph T shells, good lord.

- explains and extends the warrant for each argument: do not merely read a card name as extension. I'll give more leniency to the aff with this but I need at least an "Extend contention 1 Jones card that says that the living wage closes the wage gap because X."

- links impacts through the framework

- I really don't like CPs in LD, but if it happens, it happens.

Mainly know that I'm a more traditional LD judge. Raised under Fred Robertson's guidance. If you wouldn't run it past him, don't run it past me.

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.

LAST UPDATED: NOV. 4, 2023

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

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

Here's what I'll say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE: In addition to excellent delivery which is crystal-clear, strong, and well-paced, I am mostly interested in debaters who are able to demonstrate how they are paying attention to the threads of debate, both the affirmation & negation. I've judged at NSDA nationals, and while I am greatly impressed by the poise of debaters who have a passionately-memorized speech, it is always more impressive to me to see a debater respond to the arguments made by their fellow representatives in the chamber. I do expect a reasonable amount of professional decorum, but I am also okay with a sprinkling of humor and personality throughout your speeches.

For LD: When deciding on which debater did a better job debating a resolution, I seek to answer this question: Based on the evidence and arguments presented, which world would I prefer to live in? I expect clarity in explanations of evidence. If a debater rattles off three different theorists ("Look to my Svotsky, Ignateau, and Iglesias cards") but doesn't unpack what those ideas are, it's really difficult for me to weigh that in a round.

I am not a policy-style LD judge. Spreading usually doesn't do much for me because I can't flow it at all, and thus I can't weigh it. Have a solid framework and contentions which are related to your value criterion. Have a value. Respond to your opponents' case.

How I determine rounds:

- I am very flow-centric. I will only vote on arguments that make it into the last rebuttals.

- I go mostly w/ an offense-defense paradigm. Offensive args are assigned more weight than defensive args.

General preferences:

- Don't go too fast on non-carded arguments in your FW. I need pen time.

- Speed is fine, as long as you're clear.

- Don't steal prep time. I will start CX right after the speech ends. There is no "time out" period after speeches and before CX.

- Sign post where you are. Be organized.

- MAKE CHOICES. Don't extend every argument you made. Pick and choose. Debate is about strategy.

- Don't sign-post by author. I'll be honest, I am flowing your arguments, NOT your authors. If you say "off their Smith card..." I don't know what you're talking about.

- I will likely not vote on disclosure theory, as I believe that things that happen before/after the round are not in my jurisdiction. My jurisdiction as a judge starts with the 1AC and ends after the last speech.

Argument preferences:

- Really, I don't care. You can do whatever style you prefer.

Background in debate: I debated policy for four years in high school, and I debated NDT/CEDA policy for four years in college. I have coached all events at this point.

LD-specific stuff:

- I don't care whether you have a traditional value/criterion case, or a policy-esque or kritik case. You do you.

- I really don't prefer cases that are 95% framework and 5% topical substance. It's not that I won't vote for these types of cases, but I can't say that I like them.

- I do think you need to be "topical" in the sense that you are talking about the topic. There are lots of ways to talk about the topic, but you should be advocating for something that agrees w/ the direction of the topic if you're aff. When you're neg, you can negate the aff in a variety of ways, as long as you have a link to the aff.

- Theory is fine. But you've got to slow down if you expect me to write it down.

- I'm very, very unlikely to vote for 'tricks.' Like,really unlikely. I recommend you don't read them in front of me.

Speech docs, evidence:

- Yes, I want to be included on the email chain. My email is htripe@omahamarian.org.

- However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to be following along in your doc. Chances are, I won't even open up the doc during the round unless there is an evidence challenge/indict raised by one of the debaters.

- Sending your speech doc is part of prep time. This should theoretically take you no more than 10 seconds if you've practiced.

- I will likely NOT read a bunch of evidence after the round. Debate is an oral activity, and you should communicate the important warrants from your evidence to me during your speeches.

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.