I like to vote on sound arguments. Good speaking skills are cool too.

I'm no longer involved in the debate community. If you're reading this, you're probably in the wrong place.

I used to have a very long, detailed paradigm about how I would allow anything under xyz circumstances. However, after watching a few rounds at a recent tournament, I've changed my paradigm on debate.

I would now like debate to do what debate is meant to do:

Democratically and critically engage with pressing issues.

I will no longer listen to nontopical affirmatives. (Although you're welcome to run questionably topical affirmatives and try to convince me). I will start docking speaker points for incomprehensible speeds and yelling at me or your opponent. I will begin evaluating debates how they are meant to be evaluated, as a question of the resolution.

Experience
I debated 2 years of Public Forum in High School.
I’ve judged mostly high school Lincoln Douglas for the last 6 years.
I debated Policy for the University of Nebraska Lincoln for 3 years.

My name is Nancy. This is my paradigm.

I want to see your value throughout your case and I want you to emphasize how you will get to your value by explaining and utilizing your criterion. I would like to see your value and criterion be interconnected to your contentions. I would like to see that your contentions are related to your value and criterion and that it is not just floating by itself. If you have a single standard, please make sure you are expanding and defining your single standard and flowing the standard through each of your contentions.

I also like to see people practice good time utilization.

I also think it is very important to treat your opponent with respect at all times regardless of how heated the round may get.

Please road map before you speak and use signposts during your speech to help with the flowing of the round.

Please do not speed read, it makes it hard for me to process what you are saying when you are speed reading and it makes it hard for me to flow the round.

Please also remember that I try to make each round fair by not researching anything about each topic when presented. So please do not assume that I already understand everything about the topic and keep that in mind when expanding on your case.

Pronouns: any

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

GENERAL NOTES

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

Note on Trigger Warnings

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

30

Perfect

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

29

Excellent

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

28

Good

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

27

Average

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

26

Below Average

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

25

Poor

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

24 and below

Offensive

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

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

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

Background

My debate background is four years in NSDA LD, four years in NFA LD, and four years of judging NFA LD. I work as a general practice attorney in Lincoln, Nebraska.

NFA LD Judging Paradigm

Stock Issues: The affirmative has the burden to prove inherency, solvency, harms, and topicality. If the affirmative fails to meet that burden, I will vote for the negative.

Terminal Defense: The affirmative has the burden to show that their plan has a propensity to achieve their advantages or ameliorate their harms scenario. I do not like try-or-die arguments.

Theory: I believe that showing potential abuse is enough to justify voting for a theory shell.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Show why your interpretation of the resolution is correct and that your plan is topical. If the debaters determine that I should use a reasonability standard, I will determine whether I believe that someone’s interpretation is reasonable.

Speed: I prefer a pleasant conversational speed, and I will enforce the rules related to speed. Given that a conversational speed is subjective, I request that a debater who believes that their opponent is talking too fast to call “speed.” If a debater is requested to slow down and does not, I will vote them down.

Counterplans: I will enforce all NFA-LD rules related to counterplans including: burden to proven counterplan solvency, burden to prove competition with plan, prohibitions on multiple counterplans, prohibitions on inconsistent arguments with counterplans, and prohibitions on counterplans related to form of government, economic system, or need for further study.

Citations: I prefer debaters to provide full source citations the first time they read from a source.

Feel free to ask any additional questions before the round starts.