I have 3 years of experience competing in Public Forum debate in high school. I mainly want to see comparative weighing of arguments and evidence, especially in the final two speeches. I would prefer to see analysis driven debate rather than evidence dumps. Speed isn't really an issue as long as you speak clearly. If you have any questions for me please feel free to ask before the round.

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.

My paradigm is more of a combination of Tabula Rasa and speaking skills/communication. I prefer concise arguments that are understandable over speed. However, I will not count it against a debater if they prefer to deliver their debate speech a little faster. My most important factors are that the debater believe in their argument, and present it as such (with eye contact and confidence), while being able to discount their opponent's points.

I debated all 4 years in highschool. I debated at Millard West High School in Omaha Nebraska. I competed at plenty of tournaments in Nebraska and the national circuit. I've competed at T.O.C, Blake, nationals, and was state champion in Nebraska in PF.

I EXPECT THE SECOND REBUTTAL TO COVER BOTH SIDES! By this I mean that the second rebuttal must attack their opponents case, and defend their own case from their attacks from the first rebuttal. IF THE SECOND TEAM DOES NOT DO THIS, AND THE FIRST TEAM POINTS IT OUT IN SUMMARY THEN THE SECOND TEAM AUTOMATICALLY LOSSES! In my eyes not covering both sides is dropping your case. You have dropped all your opponents attacks and therefore it is too late to cover them in second summary.

Also new evidence in second summary is ify especially if its a new point.

EVIDENCE IS A BIG DEAL TO ME. I WILL CALL FOR CARDS AFTER THE ROUND IF THEY ARE IMPORTANT OR WHERE HOTLY DEBATED IN ROUND. If the card is shady, has poor methodology, or has any problems I will most likely not consider the evidence.

I like real world examples, and cross-applying. Warrants and impacts must be likely and probable. Speaking I dont really care. I debated four years so I can handle speed. Summary is a summary sign post, summarize the points, and dont do a rebuttal part 2.

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!

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

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.

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

Judging: I have, thus far, only judged PF rounds. That is my comfort zone.

Speed: I can follow faster presentations, but if I miss a contention because I was taking notes on the previous contention, that's on y'all.

Numbers: I don't require facts, figures, and statistics. However, if one team uses them, cites them, and defends their validity if challenged then they will have an advantage over a team that does not. This being said, if these numbers accidentally reveal that the other team outweighs on magnitude, or probability, that's also on y'all.

Unconventionality: Original (strong) arguments are appreciated and effective. They have to make sense and they have to be supported by evidence. They also have to be relevant.

How I weigh: Beyond simply proving your point, I focus on whether someone's contention has been neutralized/negated/disproven/minimized (or demonstrated to be non-unique). I tend to favor probability over magnitude.

Warrants/Technical Arguments: Linked to unconventionality, if you make an argument that requires technical knowledge, you should try to briefly explain it. Also, if the feasibility/reality of a claim is not readily apparent, the warrant should come with a short explanation as to how it makes sense.

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

My experience consists of one year of LD debate and three years of varsity Congress debate as a debater. Alternate to nationals in Congress. Graduated in 2017 and have since been judging novice LD, novice and varsity PF, but my specialty is in novice and varsity Congress.

As a judge, I look for confident speaking. A case is only as good as your delivery. That being said, showmanship is a large part of congress debate. I look for strong eye contact, natural delivery (not looking down at a word-for-word speech), and a confident voice.

Technology is a beautiful thing, and while it's so natural in our everyday lives, I do prefer a printed speech. Holding a clunky laptop is distracting and does not look natural. While I would prefer that a speech is printed or written down on paper, though, I understand it is not always an option. So I look for a natural speaking style with the laptop - preferably placed on a table with the screen pushed back in a way that is comfortable to look at in a standing position. That being said, you should not have to read from a case word-for-word.

Cases should have plenty of evidence BUT there should be IMPACTS to the evidence - giving me random stats and moving on does not tell me why I should vote for your side. I need to know what the evidence you are giving me means.The evidence does need to be cited correctly, including the source name, and date if applicable. A piece of evidence from 2010 is going to have a different impact than evidence from 2019. The citations should NEVER include .com .org .gov etc.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are different from affirmation speeches. These speeches should explain a problem, and then what the legislation is about to do for this problem. It is an introduction to the round and should be treated as such. It will be the only time during a congress round that you will not outwardly debate those around you - you are laying down facts.

Finally, Congress is debate at its core. The more that you interact with those around you, the better you will do.

In the case that there are any circumstances that make my paradigm unreasonable, I am willing to accommodate. Please talk to me about any accommodations that I would need to make before our session is over.

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’d like to think I’m more “traditional”. Keep it topical. I like “squirrely” if it’s emphasized just how it ties to the resolution and how standards are linked. Contention level is important on its own and will be evaluated, but will be sold much stronger if I’m told just how it is to be valued and why it’s relevant to the resolution. Otherwise I think it’s fair to say I’m willing to hear most things brought to the table! HOWEVER: I have ran into cases where neg says something along the lines of “debate is evil and you’re bad for playing aff”. It’s such a reach and an easy way to not get my ballot. I’ve voted for it, but felt bad doing so. So please avoid it.

NO SPEED. Reading quick is fine. I understand that leaves you with grey area. I’ll give two prompts for speed. If it’s not fixed after the second prompt I’m completely open to the opponent calling abuse. I have a hard time retaining. Being dependent on dropped arguments isn’t my jam.

She/her

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest

Debated for 3 years on NE circuit

I don’t like speed so please slow down

I don't like theory and progressive arguments but I will evaluate it as best as I can

I especially don't like theory in PF :)

As a Black judge please do not have any kumbaya (easy solvency) racism arguments. If you run racism, you need have clear links & warrants

Assume that I am not well versed in the topic so explain everything.

USE MUST TAKE PREP TIME TO READ EVIDENCE!

If you don't have a clear link, you don't get access to your impacts

I prefer if second speaker rebuilds in their rebuttal, but if you have good coverage/ cross analysis/ rebuild in summary you won't be penalized

I am not huge on card dumps and numbers being thrown around; if you want me to buy into your card/argument, I expect you to explain what the number or card means. Tell me why I should be voting for you based on your evidence (you need to do more than cite the name). Please do not misconstrue your evidence

(!!!) IMPACT- some of the best rounds are lost because teams do not impact (weighing is equally as important, make the decision for me). I absolutely hate lazy impacts such as extinction, climate change, & recession (having big numbers doesn't mean you'll win the round). Be creative!

I am here to make sure everyone has a fun, safe and exciting experience with debate. Any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc arguments will not be weighed in the round.

If you have any questions at all, just ask! I am open to helping anyone with their debate skills and ideas, no matter your success or failure. You can reach out any time, regardless if I have judged you or not :)

Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

Second speaker rebuttal is not required to respond to attacks.

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

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

Be civil.

Experience:

I debated for Millard West High School for 4 years (2015-2019) in Public Forum. I competed nationally and in the Nebraska Circuit. I was mostly a summary speaker but spent some time doing rebuttals.

Speaking:

I am all for aggression until a certain point. Be civil and do not be afraid to stand up for yourself. I will not tolerate harassment in round.

I am fine with speed as long as you enunciate and as long as the other team can understand what you are saying.

I pay attention to CX but for me to weigh something in the round you need to bring it up in a speech.

Argumentation:

You must defend in 2nd rebuttal for me to extend your case, otherwise consider it dropped.

You need to extend your arguments in summary and final focus for it to be weighed in the round.

Speaking of weighing, DO IT.

You need to explain the warrants and impacts not just read me a last name on a card and say extend it.

If the other team drops an argument say it in the next speech, I most likely will catch it but it is important to let me know that I should extend it on your side.

Evidence:

I will call for any evidence that is asked of me by the debaters, if I think it is sketchy I will call for it, or if it determines the round I will call for it.

Other things:

If you are debating a topic that is potentially triggering have a warning for me and the other team out of respect.

I will come into rounds trying my best to be as unbiased as possible.

Feel free to ask me any questions :)

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 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 :)

**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.

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

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

Things I like in a debate round:

1) Weigh arguments.

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

3) Good strategy > extend everything

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

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

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

Progressive Arguments:

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

Learn how to do a summary in debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuLuRZuvsJc

Learn how to do Impact Calculus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlR27R_bG0o&feature=youtu.be

The Human Condition and Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7sxj1Z-U1E&feature=youtu.be

My name is Jarred Williams. I graduated from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln in May of 2021, majoring in Political Science and minoring in English, and will be heading to law school in the Fall of 2023. I currently working as a commercial developer. I graduated from Lincoln Southwest High School in 2017 and competed in PF all 4 years of high school.

Do:

- use all of your allotted time in each speech

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

- Use all of your prep time.

Do not:

- cut off your opponents during crossfire.

- turn your summaries and final focuses into extended rebuttals. Rebuttals are used to address all points of clash in the round (effectively whittling down the round to the main points), summaries are used to "summarize" these main points of clash in the round and your argument and evidence you have to go along with those points, and the final focus is a brief persuasive type of speech used to explain to the judge why they'll be voting for you.

-- PF --

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

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

-- LD --

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

I debated PF at Lincoln Southwest High School for all 4 years in the Nebraska Circuit.

Argumentation/Weighing:

I am open to many styles of arguments in the round, unless they are presented or explained poorly.

I weigh heavily on your warrants and impacts, so it really helps to clearly explain the links between your warrants and impacts. Carry through your warrants and impacts through every speech or I will considered it dropped.

It would be very beneficial to provide a weighing mechanism in the form of an observation/framework. Make sure to refer back to your framework/observation in every speech or I won't consider it as an important factor in my decision.

I don't write evidence with the author's name so don't expect me to remember the "Wilkins 18" card.

I won't call for cards unless your opponents have called a card and it ends up being a controversial point in the round.

Round Structure:

The 2nd rebuttal should address both sides of the flow. This means that the second rebuttal must attack their opponents case and defend their own case. Any unaddressed points, if called out by your opponents, will be considered dropped.

The Summary should narrow down the main points in the round. Don't give me a second rebuttal during the summary and don't bring new evidence into summary. This is where most of the weighing and comparing of evidence and impacts should occur in the round in addition to the final focus.

I will not consider or flow any information after the time has ended during any of the speeches so use your time accordingly.

Speaking:

I'm prefer a moderate speed, but if you chose to speak fast, there might be certain details I miss. Overall, I would prefer clarity over speeding.

Don't be rude to your opponents (interrupting during cx, using inappropriate language, etc...) I will reflect this in your speaker points.

I would prefer teams to give an off time road map that goes over what you will be talking about in your speech for rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses.

I understand some of the challenges some people face with speaking and will take that into consideration when giving speaks. Generally, I won't be too harsh on speaker points unless I believe there was something said in the round that warrants low speaks.

I debated PF at Lincoln Southwest High School for all 4 years in the Nebraska Circuit.

Argumentation/Weighing:

I am really open to any type of argument you might give during the round. Present it with enough evidence to support it and convince me that it's a big enough factor to vote on. I rely heavily on extending impacts through the round so be sure not to drop them.

I don't usually call for cards unless your opponents have called for it and it ends up being a major factor in the round.

Round Structure:

I believe the 2nd rebuttal should address both sides of the flow. Meaning that the second rebuttal addresses what your opponents said about your case and attacking theirs. This is where I will probably extend most of the impacts if they are dropped and if the 1st speaking team points that out.

Summary and Final Focus should both be set up to look exactly the same. Boil down the main arguments and systematically explain to me why you are winning each point.

I will not flow cross-fires but I will listen. Be sure to tell me during a speech if something important happened during cross-fire so I can flow it to your side.

Speaking:

I really don't like a lot of speed but I am able to catch most of it. I definitely prefer clarity over speed.

Be sure to respect your opponents during the round by not interrupting them during cross-fire. If I feel you did something to be disrespectful, it will show in your speaker points (25-26).

Other than that, I generally give out 28s-30s to speakers.