since the 2018-19 debate season, I have been volunteering with the Millard North debate team. I primarily work with the Novice PF kids after school. I am currently a UNO student and although I was not on the debate team in high school, I took the debate class and have learned more about how debate works through the several rounds and tournaments I have judged/seen this past season. I take notes on the outline of cases, only writing word for word when wording is important. Flow is taken into account, but is not necessarily the deciding factor. seeing that debaters are weighing and outweighing impacts in the debate are an important factor in my decision-making process. Clarity is something that is important to me. I am okay with fast-paced speakers, but I expect to at least be able to comprehend what is being said. I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the debate. One thing that is very important to me is that you do not drop important points. One thing I take into account, is making sure that debaters have comebacks to points that their opponents make. simply dropping a card that your opponents use without making an effort to argue it will play a factor in my decision. If evidence requires a date to be valid, a date should be read aloud. I expect opponents to be respectful towards each other although it does not impact my overall decision. Another component to debating that is very important to me is analyzing your data. Although it is on your opponent to ask questions I expect simple explanations for data, statistics, or other information you read in your speech if it is not something that is clear.

Nebraska College of Law '24

University of Nebraska-Lincoln '20 (BA in History and Political Science)

4 year debater on NE circuit, this is my 6th year judging

she/her

Some preferences:

I am not a fan of speed.

Don't be rude. Being assertive is one thing, but being a jerk will hurt your speaker points

I don't write down author names, so don't just refer to your "Johnson" card

Signpost after constructive

Pleeeease have your cards/evidence readily available

***Debate needs be a safe and accessible environment, give trigger warnings. Do not commodify/weaponize sensitive subjects for the sake of winning, I will not weigh those arguments in your favor.

Argumentation/weighing:

I am fine with any type of argumentation you want to use

- but just an FYI, I am not super familiar with progressive PF

2nd speaking teams don't have to rebuild in rebuttal, but it probably would be advantageous to do so

I care the most about your warrants, so explain your links as clearly as possible. I hate seeing huge impacts with poor explanations as to why they happen

- so, please! don't ask me to extend your argument from a tagline

I rarely call for cards at the end of the round, flesh them out for me!

If the round is a total wash, I will presume neg

Most importantly: have fun and be respectful!

My name is Keegan Donahue and I did Pf for 3 years at Millard North. I also helped coach at Lewis Palmer High School for a short period.

I'm a rather flexible judge but here are a few things I look for in a round:

1. Please for the love of everything good, signpost. Give me a roadmap before your speech.

2. Please be courteous. The topics are sometimes sensitive and it's easy to lose track of why we're here; to learn and have fun.

3. Speed is not an issue as long as it's not used to jam 80 sub points through.

4. Run whatever arguments you like as long as you can back it up with data and tell me why it matters.

5. Please ask any questions before or after.

6. I dont count any new arguments after the 2nd speeches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Extend warrants as well as impacts

3. Be at least decently nice in cx

Experience: I debated for Millard North for 4 years

I have experience in congressional debate and public forum. In public forum, second rebuttals should address both sides of flow. If you are in a cross examination, condescension and acting offended are not substitutes for a substantive answer or a better argument. Being rude to your opponent does a lot less for your case than a good argument. Let your opponent answer and respond professionally.

Make your contentions and sources clear without assuming I know all of the research. I appreciate clarity over assumptions that implied impacts speak for themselves.

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

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

-run theory on me and see what happens. actually idk what would happen

-Medical Student at University of Nebraska Medical Center, University of Nebraska Lincoln 2020 graduate with bachelor's in Biochemistry

-Debated 4 years in Nebraska circuit PF, competed at NSDA nationals, 7th year judging PF

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

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

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

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

-I don't write down card names

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

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

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

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

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

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

tonyleaiy1997@gmail.com for any questions

Respect and decorum. Don't talk over your opponent, don't talk/pack up while they're speaking. Cross isn't for arguing.

I was in debate all four years in high school, and this is my fourth year as a judge. The best way to win a round is to tell a clear and consistent story that flows through all of your speeches. Although, I'm not a judge that comes into a round with predetermined biases nor predetermined ideas of how a debate should be, so just have a nice, clash-filled debate and I'll be a neutral judge.

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

I expect the second team to defend in their Rebuttal.

Don't speed read.

Don't run counter plans for me.

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

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

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

Try to have fun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I competed for Sioux Falls Lincoln high school in public forum debate my senior year. I am okay with a quicker speaking pace as well as more complex arguments and link chains. If you have any specific questions, just ask me before the round :)

Speed is a no go for me but I will offer one “clear” to clarify pace. Mainly traditional but I can be open to new well supported thoughts

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

They/Them

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021; 2023-Present

Email: addissonLstugart@gmail.com

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

TL/DR:

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

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

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

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

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

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

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

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

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

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For public forum debate:

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

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

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

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

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

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last updated on Feb 19 of 2022 after watching some rounds at the Milo Cup!

tl;dr = be a nice person with good analytical skills, and you'll be fine!

Bio

I debated in PF for Millard North for four years and now have a degree in English Language and Literature. :)

RE: The February Topic

PLEASE tell me how your arguments link back to the topic at hand. Explain how your impacts affect NATO on balance. I do not want to go rogue and do the weighing for you!!! And you do not want that either!!

Arguments

• I’m happy to evaluate * almost * anything as long as you provide a reason for it to be in the round. That being said, I will also evaluate arguments about why unconventional positions or argumentative styles are unproductive for pf.

• No matter the type of argument you’re presenting (framework, contention, etc.), please be sure to explain the work it does in the debate so that we're on the same page.

Speeches

• I expect the second rebuttal to both attack and rebuild. If the team giving the second rebuttal does not rebuild their case, I regard all arguments laid against their case as dropped. So please respond to the first rebuttal!!

• Personally, I still think that summaries are for condensing the round, rather than extending a bunch of little tags from rebuttals, so please aim for some substance in these speeches.

• I was a pf debater, so that should help inform how fast your speech is. I can follow reasonable speed, and the most helpful thing you can do is slow down a bit when you're tagging cards/ arguments or signposting so that I get your ideas on the flow. If I miss the tag, I'll unfortunately miss some content while trying to figure out what you're doing.

Evidence

• I prefer to hear the full citation for your evidence the first time you read the card. This would sound something like “According to [name] [credentials or affiliation] [date] …” instead of “[Last name] [year] [card]."

• PLEASE do not paraphrase the evidence you have in your case. Personally, I don't even want to hear you paraphrase your block evidence; however, I know this is becoming the norm. But you really should have a case with actual citations and quotes, and if you don't... what are you even doing??!!?

• (I understand that conventions around evidence presentation vary by location and circuit, so I'll meet you halfway on this stuff until something seems fishy. The best way to avoid that situation is to cite your evidence properly and read the actual language of your cards whenever possible, especially in earlier speeches.)

Events other than PF

• I've judged some LD in the past, so I'll note a few things. If I'm your LD judge, you can think of me as someone who will understand and follow your arguments on a conceptual level and as someone who will have no idea how they tend to work in the context of LD and LD theory. So I ask that you adapt by keeping the core of the arguments you're running and modifying the amount of LD theory that you try to run past me. I'm not going to know how something like a topicality shell works. But also know that I'll always do my best to follow whatever you do, even if it gets a bit techy.
  
  
• I have judged and competed in congress a few times, and I think my PF paradigm is a good guide for what I'm looking for in congress speeches. Speak however makes you feel the most comfortable; I just want to hear substantive arguments that further the dialogue in the room (so... please don't repeat the same arguments just to get a speech in).
  
  
• I've never judged policy debate. If by some fluke I'm you're policy judge, please try to adapt! Again, I can follow you as long as you give me some context and help me understand what you're trying to accomplish in the round (and talk a little slower lol).

FINALLY, if you have any questions about any of this (or anything else/ need help finding some support at a tournament) please feel free to ask. I'm not an active coach, so some of my preferences or judging philosophies might not conform to the current circuit norms; I'd rather get that out in the open before the debate than deal with it after the round. :) I'm also always happy to follow up after rounds, whether to give more specific feedback or to help with other concerns that may come up. We're ultimately all on the same team.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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