Millard South Squashfestival
2016 — Omaha, NE/US
Shane Adams Paradigm
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.
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.
Lia Coulliard Paradigm
Makayla Gill Paradigm
Eli Graf Paradigm
Annie Jia Paradigm
Sophia Kriz Paradigm
James Le Paradigm
Brian Murray Paradigm
To those of you reading this for TOC 2017:
Posted: 4/26/2017 @ 12:20am
My apologies for not correcting this paradigm sooner. To those that did strikes before posting time and didn't strike me, I hope nothing here is too out-of-the-ballpark for you.
Largely this paradigm is written for Policy as that is what I coach and judge most often, but here I am in PF.
As I come from policy I don't have any really strong opinions on what PF should look like (read as: if you want to run a plan, sure run a plan, basically do what you want in this round but please make it somewhat educational/a good debate.)
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!
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.
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.
Kiana Ngirchoimei Paradigm
Jesse Nguyen Paradigm
Clio Reed Paradigm
Grady Wiedeman Paradigm
Norfolk High School
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Assistant Coach, Lincoln High School
Background: I debated for four years of policy debate (Norfolk, NE), debated NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska (2 years), and am currently the policy coach at Lincoln High (NE).
Affirmative: I like when the affirmative fits the resolution, but if you can convince me that the affirmative doesn't need to be topical then I will go with it. That being said, I voted for and coach kritikal affs, I have no problem with them.
Negative: Run what you feel comfortable with. Play to your strengths and that will be a better debate all around. I like a good theory debate, but don't go out of your way to provide one if you don't feel comfortable with it or if you can't explain it well.
Kritiks: The only particular I have is that the alternative needs to be explained well.
General: I try my best to vote based off of what I hear in round. I have particular opinions about debate, but I will do my best to judge based off what I hear in round rather than use those opinions. I prefer analysis over card dumping. The more contextualized analysis is usually the more compelling to me. In general, I like it when you're genuine with your arguments. I want you to like them and I want to be able to like them. You spent a lot of time cutting these positions, do them justice.