Experience: 

Policy Coach @ Ralston High School

3 years policy debate @ Millard West High School (2007-2010)

State Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

Nebraska North District Champion in Policy Debate (2010)

 

General: Debate the arguments that you enjoy and debate them well. Speed & tag-team cross-ex are fine.

 

Argument Preferences:

Affirmative: Engage with the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to be "topical."

Disads: Run good internal links and be able to explain them.

Kritiks: Don't link to your own discourse links, I'm willing to vote you down on perf-con. Author experience with Heidegger, Foucault, Baudrillard, Camus. Links of omission are rarely good. 

T/FW: High threshold for developing procedural arguments. I really like them, and happy to vote on them, but both teams need to put in the time to address the nuances of the argument. Won't vote on undeveloped Role-of-the-ballot arguments.

 

About me: I debated for 3 years for Omaha Westside. I go to UNL now and coach at Millard North in Omaha. This is my fourth year out. I am prepared and willing to judge most any argument- in high school I ran arguments all across the spectrum, from politics DAs to affs without plan texts.

Non-traditional debate/affirmatives: I am probably a good judge for your aff without a plan text/non-traditional aff. I ran these types of arguments my senior year of high school. That being said, just because I did it doesn’t mean I’ll vote for your style and argument automatically. Tell me what your performance or advocacy means and why I should favor you. Don’t bother no-linking positions that obviously link to you. Debaters often aren’t overly shifty when they are passionate about the argument.

I am very familiar with high theory-based arguments and ran them frequently in high school. I am less familiar with identity arguments.

Kritiks: Ran them regularly in high school and I really enjoy a 1-off k debate. That being said, I think making a one-off k debate actually relate to the affirmative is extremely important. Obviously case-specific kritiks are the best for this, but more generic criticisms are fine if they are debated in the context of the affirmative. It is not very educational to talk on and on about your pet philosopher and never engage with the substance of the affirmatives you are negating.

Perms are big for me because it’s important to prove why the kritik is a reason to reject the specific affirmative. Case turns and arguments extrapolated from the kritik are impressive and will lead to good speaks.

If you are reading obviously contradictory positions with your k (like a cap bad k and an econ good DA) I will likely hold you to a higher standard to prove that condo is good and that your kritik alt works. It will tough, for example, for me to accept that we should reject capitalism at a personal level if you just told me we need to save the economy from collapse.

I consider myself pretty familiar with most kritik literature that is read in high school debate. When I debated, kritiks I ran frequently included cap, Heidegger, and Bataille. I am least familiar with psychoanalysis, so if you are reading it please make sure you go beyond the common buzzwords in your explanations.

Counterplans/Disads: Definitely. I find traditional policy-style debate to be educational and worthwhile. I like to see unique, aff-specific CPs. Well-researched and executed PICs are fun watch. A good politics DA debate is one of the best things that can happen in a round.

Framework: Kritiks probably aren’t cheating. Framework is your vision for the round and debate in general, which means you can’t just kick it if there’s offense sitting on it. I understand that sometimes there just aren't other answers to be made and an exclusive framework is the best and only thing that applies to the non-traditional aff you are negating, but a lot of the time there are more effective and more educational arguments to read.

Topicality: I default to reasonability if no one tells me anything else, but this obviously will change if you tell me to evaluate the T debate in another way. While obviously important in all of debate, offense on T is really important for me, especially for the aff in a situation where you have competing interpretations. For T arguments that serve the function of framework arguments, see the framework section above.

Theory: My default setting is to reject the argument, not the team. If you want something different, really commit significant to theory. It’s good for your case if you can show in-round abuse. Limited conditionality is probably good, plan-minus PICs are probably good. CPs probably don’t compete off of certainty. Obviously all of these defaults can change based on what happens in the debate.

Speed: I can handle pretty much any speed. Remember there is a difference between reading fast well and just reading fast. The latter can hurt your speaks. If you’re unclear, I will say “clear” a couple times and then you’re on your own.

Paperless: Prep stops when you are done prepping and just flashing. I'm all for encouraging paperless debate, but that being said don't be a jerk and steal prep or take unreasonably long to flash. If this happens then I will start running prep while you flash.

If you have any questions that weren’t answered here, please ask. I like talking to debaters.

Other stuff:
Tag-team cross-x is fine, but never answering cross-x questions will hurt your speaks.
I value spin over words on paper. Everyone can read cards, not everyone can make good arguments on their own.
Humor is a plus.
Be assertive, but respectful.
Most of all, debate is something you should enjoy, learn from and feel passionate about. If you show those things in your debating, you’ll do well in front of me.

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.