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.

Put me on the email chain please: makaylajgill@gmail.com

Background: I debated for four years at Millard West High School in Omaha, NE from 2014-2018 (I’m a senior at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln). My debate career was a mix of traditional policy and K debate. I was a 2N who wanted to be flexible, and my partner (who was in charge of the aff) was more to the K side. I loved anything that directly engaged the case. It's been years since I last judged debate, so keep that in mind.

Basic Summary: Run what you want to run, but don’t expect me to automatically know everything you’re saying. I could’ve written the evidence, but I’d still want an explanation. Framing can make or break a round. Feel free to ask me specific questions about my paradigm before round.

AFF: I strongly believe the burden of the affirmative is to prove they do/solve something (unless your advocacy is doing nothing, if so prove how it’s not the status quo, etc), so case needs to be extended. I will vote neg on presumption.

NEG: Run whatever you want but explain it to me. I could’ve written your evidence, and I would still want you to do the leg-work to explain your link, internal link, alt/counterplan, etc. Reference the specific arguments below for perspective on certain off-case. Be adaptable. Be creative. Be strategic.

Specific Arguments:

Policy v. K Affs: I’ve ran both and I think both have value. Narratives and performances are awesome, but they’re so much more powerful if you use them to power your aff/advocacy.

Kritiks: As stated above, please do not assume I know your theory or how it solves. I ran Neolib quite a bit, but I do have at least a basic familiarity with a lot of other Ks either through running them or debating against them. I want a decent link and want to know what the alternative is that I’d be voting for.

Theory: The main reason I don’t find voting for theory super appealing is because usually people don’t prove substantial abuse. However, if someone drops theory, I weigh it significantly more. Dropped or not, you need to prove an impact/abuse for me to vote on it.

Topicality: Topicality is underrated and underused, but you have to prove a sufficient amount of abuse.

Disads: Pretty cool when you have a good link and explain the internal link chain story.

Counterplans: I’m actually a super big fan of counterplans/counter-methods – when they’re creative and run well. Make sure it’s competitive.

Framework/Framing: Framework can lead to incredible debates, if run and debated properly (which doesn’t happen often). I rarely find the classic “exclude the aff because k debate isn’t traditional debate” persuasive, just as a heads up. Just because you give an interpretation on FW or say role of the ballot doesn’t mean you automatically win. If they challenge it, you have to defend it. That said, if you drop the framing, you’ll be in a rough place. Do impact framing. It’s a basic step that people overlook. (Role of the Ballot isn't an instant winner. I view it more as a framing tagline, so I need you to justify why I should utilize the ballot that way)

Gray Graves

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

I use they/them pronouns.

Debate Experience:

High School

- Millard West (2015-2017) Lincoln Douglas

- Millard North (2017-2019) Policy

College

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

I coach Policy/LD at Marian High School.

Misc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K

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

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

Framework

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

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

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

Topicality/Theory

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

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

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

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

DA/CP

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

Case

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

ROTB

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

Speaks

Generally, I will determine speaks through this loose model:

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

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

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

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

Debated policy at Millard North High School, currently in my second year out.

I like to weigh debates on a more big-picture level. Honestly i am not the best at handling rapid-fire tech speeches. I'm competent enough with it, though. I won't important things if they are handled accordingly. I'm just not an ideal judge for the style.

I don't really feel one way or the other about perf con good or bad, disclosure theory, or most types of framework.

I am not a fan of framework that doesn't provide any suggestion of an alternative model of debate rounds that reaches out to the aff in some way (i.e. T version of the aff to at least show that you're trying to do something productive).

I know more about identity-politic Ks than i do about high-theory Ks.

I can keep up with speed and 0.5 extra speaker points if it's relatively clear too.

Don't worry about making eye contact with me during your speeches/crossex. It makes me feel kinda awkward.

Contact info: jmsle20@gmail.com

TL;DR just explain things well to me. Make sure things are explained clearly and cross-applied to the opponents arguments and I'll do my best to understand. After judging some national circuit debate rounds as well, I’ve realized I cannot keep up with the speed of the higher level national circuit so please aware of that and slow down. I may or may not tell you to slow down.

Speed: I think i'm ok with speed, thought after dowling i've realized not as good as i used to think. Overall somewhere around 7/10 on speed. that being said, if ur going to read a theory shell or something thats really blippy with lots of short claims,example FW, you're gonna need to slow down. If you go like many many really short blippy off, please go slow. Most other things im able to keep up well enough.

I used to be a CX debater for Millard North. I debated for 3 years as a identity/performance debater from 2013-2017 with one gap year. I coach on and off for the Millard North debate team as well.

Critical Arguments: I do have a bias towards critical arguments. While I do my best to not let this cloud my judgement it does happen. While I don't have a good understanding of many arguments here I do my best to have some kind of basis for most arguments. I do struggle more with postmodern literature so in terms of those just make sure everything is clear and explained well and avoid jargon if possible. It also helps if the argument has a material basis in the alternative. While theoretical alternatives are fine, if they don't have some kind of real world example then it's harder for me to vote for. tldr for critical stuff - i have an ok baseline about the mainstream args, just make sure u explain methods/alts/links etc etc well.

Critical Affs: I like critical affs, I ran one myself in HS. That being said, make sure you're doing the work against FW teams and other K teams to explain what offense exists and why I should vote aff and not just vote neg on SSD.

Plan text Affs: I did performance and identity args in HS so I am less familiar with nuances that come from classic plan text affs vs. x offcases as well as more technical arguments. Just make sure to explain arguments and analysis and I should be fine.

T/FW: I struggle to understand them unless there is clear abuse coming from the aff. I am starting to understand them better, however T and FW debates tend to be more blippy than not so just be sure to explain offense clearly. In terms of speed on the theory debates, be careful just spreading through ur entire theory shells and stuff in front of me cause i will probably miss a lot of the one liners that you end up spreading through especially if you end up not flashing the analytics

Short Version;

Run what you want to run. If you're from PF, I judge rounds with a lens of logic and risk evaluation. My paradigm applies to you more if you're from LD or Policy.

I'm okay with traditional and K debate. The ballot deciding journey is based on the argument map of the round -- which argument won here, canceled out there -- and which team has the better position after everything is added up.

*************

Long Version;

**If you choose the strategy of an 8-off blitzkrieg: Most likely expect a word at the end of the round about how that is neither fun nor valuable**

I debated for 3 years at Millard West Highschool. I ran renewable energy affirmatives and my last year I ran a courts affirmative dealing with Terry vs Ohio, that had a K aff counterpart. I love science affirmatives and anything exciting.

I try to be a clean slate, whose only purpose is to understand the arguments made, compute how they interact, and evaluate the big picture of the round. Judge intervention is not ideal, but when it does happen it's because there are gaps in the flow that I have no choice but to fill in order to reach a decision.

I prefer substance over tech -- let that apply to 8 off debates, ultra speed reading, and theory. I will occasionally, on rare occasions, take the liberty to ignore an inconsequential tech if it upholds the integrity of debate substance. If you're serious about condo, it gets a new piece of paper.

Kritiks-- You have to sell your solvency in order to win. If you're claiming to solve for real world harms, you have to anchor your kritik and our debate round in the real world and tell me explicitly why your aff/k is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot.

Framework-- Too many framework debates never make it much further than the shell. Again, same as kritiks, you need to anchor the framework to the real world and talk about the round and why the framework is beneficial enough to deserve the ballot. The aff probably claims to do something in the real world, you need to do something in the real world that outweighs what they do.

T-- I default to reasonability, within reason. The purpose of topicality should ideally stick to making sure the aff is topical. Topicality's best foot forward is impacted out impacts.

DA, CP-- Fairly straight forward. Sell a story, paint a picture.

Case-- I tend to like when debaters give overviews of their case and consistently sell it throughout the round.

LD

I am a proponent of debaters doing what they do best and I am pretty open to hearing anything you want to run, policy debate will do that to you.

Value & Criterion: I find this debate tends to be muddled. The way this debate works for me is impact calculus: who's impact matters more and why. A good way to think about this debate for me as a judge is to tell me why you win under either teams arguments which is aided by having offense against your opponent. I am a policy judge, I think in terms of impacts more than anything else so be sure you explain to my what your impacts are and why they outweigh your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, probability).

I do have some cautions about those running "policy debate arguments" in LD.

Kritiks: I come from a slightly more policymaker background though I ran and competed against K's plenty of times. That background gives me a certain threshold of explanation of a kritik, the alt, the link, that I am comfortable voting on and I have found no matter the debaters ability, there structurally isn't enough time in LD to reach that explanation threshold. I have voted for Ks in LD, but have found myself still adjusting my threshold appropriately for LD. I say this as a caution for those who wish to run K's. Like I said, I've voted on K's in LD, but my threshold is higher than perhaps normal.

Theory: Theory can be good and effective when argued with standards and impacts to the debate round/space. Debaters who read a bunch of theory arguments at the bottom of their case, rattled off one after another, without independent justification for each one, likely will find I won't evaluate those arguments: 1) because of what I said before this and 2) I try to avoid flowing from the speech doc so I may miss one of the theory blips you give so you won't win because of it--even if I consult the speech doc, if need to know you said it and where in order for me to get it to my flow.

Please please please ask me questions if you have them. I put these three aspects of my paradigm here because I know these are The debate space is your space and I want to give you as much information about me as a judge as possible to set you best up for success so do not hesitate to ask. If one team asks a question and the other isn't present, I will make sure each team is aware of what was asked and what my answer is.

PF

As I come from policy I don't have any really strong opinions on what PF should look like.

My one opinion on PF is that the SECOND REBUTTAL needs to address BOTH SIDES of the debate (that means you should attack and defend in this speech), if you do not do this, any arguments you don't address will be considered conceded. It helps to even out the advantage given to the second team by speaking last. I generally prefer the summary to be line-by-line compared to a whole round picture, you won't be punished (speaker points, assumed conceded args).

Mostly for me, don't be idiots in the round (or in general) and we should have a good, fun round.

Also, I do like to make jokes (and by jokes I mean really stupid, unfunny jokes that I find funny) feel free to laugh, or don't laugh, at them, or me, but just a heads up. It surprises some people.

Please ask me any questions you have! I'm always glad to talk about anything debate related or not!

POLICY

Updated 8/6/2015 (Most a copy and paste from original)
Background: Debated for four years at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska and graduated in 2013. I don’t debate in college but am an assistant at Millard West. I go to school at UNL (if you wanted to know).
Spark Notes Version: Debate how you want to. That’s the most important thing. Debate is an educational game. Make sure you facilitate CLASH in the round. Please engage in your opponents arguments. Seriously. The biggest thing is do what you want to in the debate round. It isn't about me.
Speed: I am fine with. I will yell clear if I want you to be clearer.
Flashing Evidence: I will stop prep time when the flash drive is ejected from the computer of the team saving the files to it
Shadow Prepping: DO NOT SHADOW PREP. For clarity—shadow prep is defined as once prep time ends and one of the debaters in the round is still prepping. I will deduct prep time from the appropriate team. It is very annoying to see this trend. Once I see it happen less I will loosen up on this policy but I shouldn’t even have to mention it. Alas, I do.

Specific arguments:
Theory: This is always a difficult one to read the judges based on what they put on the wiki, and as such, theory is rarely run and it is even more rarely gone for. There is also a very simple reason for this: No one invests the time needed on theory to go for it. I love theory debates when they happen, but it kills me when they are done poorly. This is how I would evaluate a good theory debate: A shell can be used the first time it comes up by both sides, that’s fine. Just don’t zip through them. But when it comes time to going for the argument, you need to sit down and answer the shell of your opponent part by part. Just extending your arguments doesn’t work, answer back in full AND extend your arguments. Think of it like a Topicality debate, just extending your standards and voters won’t win you Topicality, the same applies here—you must answer. Do this and you will be in a better position to win theory in front of me. If you aren’t prepared to win a theory debate, don’t go for it—that’s a good rule of thumb for any debate actually.
Topicality: Speaking of Topicality, what would it take for me to vote on T? I loved topicality when I debated. It is such a great argument that has so many different aspects of it; it can be easy to trip up teams. That’s just a little so you know. Just like Theory, you need to answer every aspect of Topicality in order to win topicality, or if you are the affirmative, not lose on topicality. Never just extend the shells that are spewed off in the 1NC and the 2AC, do some in-depth analysis on the all levels. Interpretation is usually a big one to make sure to cover, then of course standards which prove the voters. Bottom-line: Clash on the topicality flow and utilize all of the flow to prove why you win.
Disadvantages: There is a theme in all of this, Clash and engagement. That is important on the disad as well. Also, I love disads. So much fun! Back to what is important to me. Well, all of it. Answer arguments is important, clearly. This should go without saying, but make sure your disads are Unique. This is something that is under-utilized in disad debate—specifics. Such as specific uniqueness evidence to people or pieces of legislation, or economic analysts, etc.
Politics: I love the politics disad and always enjoy seeing it ran. One thing—I hate the rational policy maker argument affs make against the politics disad—don’t do that. I will not vote on it.
Counterplans: I figure at this point I will be just reiterating myself if I talk about clash again, so I won’t. However, when negative you better show how you are competitive. Be warned, textual competition is shaky ground for me, functional competition is almost always a better way to go. That being said, if you love textually competitive counterplans I will listen to them, just be warned if challenged you better have clear and rock solid reasons as to why textually competitive counterplans are good.
Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks but you should know a few things about them to win them with me. As the negative, you need to win alternative solvency. If you don’t do this, you probably will lose. Negative, just because you give long overviews doesn’t mean you answered their arguments directly. You need to apply those arguments you made in the overview to the flow specifically.
Framework: Framework is a great way to tell me how to evaluate the round, whether it be policy-maker, or critical, or whatever you want. Be warned, I do not find the framework of “exclude my opponents because they debate wrong” persuasive at all. Just figured I would let you know that ahead of time…
Round Behavior: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Kicking Positions: I will not kick positions for you. If you argue it in the 2NR or 2AR, I will evaluate it.

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

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.

Experience: I did debate all four years of high school and medaled at State three times. I have judged two tournaments this season.

Topicality: I am fine with Topicality. However, I would encourage you to only run it when you can make a strong case that the Aff doesn't meet the Resolve. Too many people waste time on flimsy Topicalities. The best way to win me over on Topicalities is to argue Standards; prove to me why your interpretation is superior. If the Neg can prove that the Aff doesn't meet the Resolve, then it's game over for the Aff.

DA's: I will entertain almost any DA. However, a DA with a generic link won't hold nearly as much weight in the round as a DA with a specific link. Finally, I'm not a huge fan of terminal impacts. Don't just give me a crazy impact simply to have the biggest impact in the round; make it somewhat plausible. Not every DA should lead to extinction, WW3, or nuclear war.

Counter Plans: I'm not a huge fan of counter plans, but I will consider them. If you do choose to run a counter plan, please make sure that it is easy to understand and isn't a convoluted mess. Also, make sure you can prove that your counterplan is Mutually Exclusive, Nontopical, and Comparitively Advantageous.

Kritiks: I don't like kritiks and probably won't vote on one. This is policy debate, so I would prefer a debate that argues about the merits of the policy put forth by the Aff.

Email-chain: benwheeler194@gmail.com

Background: I was a policy debater for three years at Millard West High School, from the years 2016-2019, and I have been judging debate from 2019-Present. I have experience judging policy, congressional, and Lincoln-Douglass debate. I have obtained my degree in Microbiology with minors in Physics and Mathematics from the University of Nebraska--Lincoln. I have experience in both traditional and K debate, but I have no overall preference (I will listen to any argument and weigh them against each other). I have debated as both a 2N and a 2A.

TL;DR: Run whichever argument you are most comfortable with--just make your arguments smart. I try not to put my own personal biases in the debate round, so just run the arguments you are more comfortable with (I am more likely to vote on a smart argument which you are comfortable with than I am for a certain type of argument). Make sure the way you frame your arguments makes sense, and that you answer the opponents arguments. My favorite things to see in-round are clash and framing debates.

Policy

AFF: I am a big fan of continuity throughout the AFF (i.e. extend your arguments throughout the round, and make sure your arguments all make sense with each other). This can be done as either a simple case overview, or can be more complex, given the context of the round. Vote NEG on presumption (unless you give me a REALLY good NEG debate). I am not a huge fan of not using the AFF throughout the debate. If the AFF team, specifically Policy AFFs, do not at least extend their plan-text throughout the round, I have a hard time voting for them.

NEG: Anything you want to run, run it. Typically a bigger fan of Policy arguments on the NEG (T, FW, CP, or DA's), but I think all NEG arguments warrant some merit.

Specific Arguments:

Policy v K AFFs: I think that both Policy and K AFF have merit within the debate round. If you run a Policy AFF, make sure you put forth the plan-text in every speech, and give me a reason why your plan-text matters, not just within the round, but also outside of it. For K AFF's, I would prefer to see some sort of advocacy, but if you don't use one, make sure you tell me why that matters. If you don't, i'll just assume you don't have any sort of plan, and therefore, no out-of-round solvency. For both types of AFF's, I like to see solvency and framing above impacts. Even if the impacts seem smaller than those of the NEG, if you can solve it better than that of the NEG, you win the round.

Kritiks: On the K flow, I think links and solvency are the biggest issues you need to solve for. Not only do you need to prove you solve, you need to prove how you solve better than the AFF. But you also need to link to the AFF for that to work. Outside of these, I like to see both a good impact debate, as well as a good theory debate on the K flow (perm theory or otherwise). Alternatives should also be thoroughly explained as to how they solve, or if you don't have an alternative, tell me why.

Theory: I think theory arguments can be very interesting, if you can spin them right. I think most theory is very under-utilized within the debate space, especially within the Nebraska circuit. Vague Alts and Multiple Worlds are good arguments, if you can explain to me how they work, and why not voting on them is a bad thing. Other than those, conditionality theory and framing debates are always fun debates to watch. If you are going to run theory, just make sure you explain yourself well so I can follow along.

Topicality: Interpretation debate is an important factor of this, as well as having counter-interpretations. Make sure you explain why your interpretation is important to this round specifically, and how it operates better than the counter-interpretation. Make sure that these also have standards and voters, or I won't vote on them. If you run either Effects-T or Extra-T, just make sure you know how they operate against the AFF.

FW: Big fan of FW, but same things as said in the Topicality section. Make sure you have a good interpretation, standards, and voters, or I will not consider it against the AFF. I am a big fan of education arguments, with both FW and T. You also have to gear your arguments specifically against the AFF (generic FW shells are usually un-interesting, and lead to a lack of clash on the FW flow). If you actually engage the AFF specifically within the FW flow, I will consider the arguments more than if you don't.

CP's: Extend your plan-text within every round, and if you can have your own internal net-benefits within the CP, I am more likely to consider it than without it. Internal net benefits are not necessary by means, but it is difficult to evaluate a CP against the case if there are no net benefits (either internal or from a DA). Big fan of perm debate on the CP flow as well, especially if it's outside of perm do both.

DA's: If you are going to run a DA as a net benefit to a CP, make sure you actually link to your CP, and that there is an internal link between the DA and its impacts. Otherwise, your DA will be wishy-washy at best. If you are running a DA on its own, the impact debate is going to be the most important thing I look to. Sometimes these DA's work better as straight case turns, and sometimes they work really well as standalone off-case--depends on how the round is playing out. If you run a DA as a net benefit to a K, I will cry actual tears of joy.

Counter-Methods: Essentially a CP against a K AFF, I think these are hella under-utilized and could lead to really good debates. Just prove to me how your method is better than that of the K AFF, and how its solvency mechanism actually operates.

In-Round Procedure:

Speed: Read as fast or as slow as you are comfortable with. As long as I can still understand what you're saying, go for it.

Prep: Don't steal prep--if you do, just make sure I don't notice. I won't count flashing or emailing against your prep time. Just don't steal prep, and we'll be cool.

Fun: Have fun.

Congressional Debate

TL;DR: When judging a congress round, the most important things I look for are sources, clash, and decorum within the round.

Sources:When making an argument within a congress round, I would like to see some evidence to back up the arguments you are making. This is not necessarily important if you are refuting an opponent or referring to evidence provided by other debaters in the round--this is specific to the arguments you make. Sure, some arguments are good as analyticals, but if you are making any claims involving statistics or empirical evidence or whatnot, I would like to either see some evidence to back up these claims, or some REALLY convincing analytical arguments.

Clash:One of my biggest gripes with congress rounds are a lack of clash/interaction with other speeches in the round. I can grant that this is impossible for the first speaker, but if you are the second speaker or later and you do NOT referring to opponents speeches/arguments, you are missing some opportunities to make your case sound stronger. Having good clash within the round can make the claims you are already making seem much stronger, and fully utilizing all the evidence within the round may help you make arguments that you otherwise might not have considered. A "plan in a vacuum" with good evidence and warrants to back it up seems less convincing to me than an argument that fully incorporates arguments made throughout the round, but has slightly worse evidence. While clash is not an expressly "necessary" part of the congressional experience, clash, in my opinion, makes the round more fun for me and in turn, means I am more likely to vote you up.

Decorum: This mostly has to do with speaking points, but clear and concise diction throughout your speeches is appreciated. When watching someone speak and giving them speaker points, I look to the debater that is the most confident in the round and can put together arguments/refutations in the best order. Good speaking means good diction, clear speaking, and convincing arguments.

Miscellaneous: If you are chosen as a PO for the round, don't think of that as a bad thing! POs have a tough job within the round and my scores for you will reflect that. As long as you are keeping every on track and keeping good time of the round, I will generally score you well.

Other than what I said above, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

Lincoln-Douglass Debate

Given the current board state of LD debate, my judging is typically very similar to that of policy. If you are reading anything resembling a policy speech (such as a K), refer to what I have said above.

Value Criterion: If you are still running a value criterion in 2023, then kudos to you! I love seeing value criterion within the round, irregardless of if there is a plan/advocacy to back them up. Just make sure that your value criterion is not vague, and make sure the value criterion actually does the thing you want it to do. It doesn't matter how good a value criterion is if you can't debate it effectively.

Logic: When watching a LD debate, I want the arguments you are making to be made in a logical order and in a way that I can easily interpret. High theory Ks and other likewise arguments are fine, but just make sure that you can explain it to me or I will NOT vote you up on it. Being too technical isn't my favorite either, but a good mixture between the two can help you to make fun arguments while still being logically sound.

Public Forum

I have never judged PF, but it seemed rude to not include in my paradigm (since I already have the other three styles listed). Basically for PF, make your arguments clear and easy to follow, and I will judge from there. I do apologize if I judge it like a policy judge though.

Big Questions
Based

Personal Context:

* I use they/them pronouns; though, I prefer that you not refer to me specifically at all in round.

* Debated, judge, and currently coach for Millard North High School in Omaha, NE. My teams don't have a specific paradigm - they run either K-leaning positions or Traditional-leaning positions. I have experience coaching on most points along the K-Trad spectrum.

* Debated in the NDT/CEDA circuit with Arizona State and in the NFALD circuit with University of Nebraska-Lincoln (with varying degrees of success). I mostly ran kritikal arguments on both aff and neg sides with large emphases on Biopolitical critiques and Butler-esque IR critiques.

* By default, I evaluate rounds on offense/defense paradigm with tech > truth as the internal link to weighing thresholds. However, I am flexible on this if teams sufficiently warrant a shift away from that paradigm.

General Paradigm:

Just run whatever you want in front of me. Do what you're comfortable with and what is the most fun for you. If you're more comfortable running 8-off neg strats with heg good impacts, do it. If you want to run more performance-based models of debate, please do so.

I evaluate debates on the following criteria:

1) Did you sufficiently warrant how I should evaluate the round (framing, T, theory, etc)?

2) Did you sufficiently answer the primary question/issue of the debate?

3) "Are there reasons why an approach is dangerous or insufficient that overwhelms its positive potential?" - Ryan Wash