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 preferences for public forum debate are as follows... 

I want to see clash and impacts clearly. I would like to receive LOTS of analysis and explanation with contentions and cards. During speeches, I expect proper decorum and respect for your opponents, especially in cross examination when directly speaking with one another.  During summary, I would like the round summarized not another rebuttal and then strictly voters in final focus. I want to see the big impacts of my vote and what ¨the world¨ would be like if I voted in affirmation or negation.  

I debated Policy in high school, but now most often judge PF and LD. That being said, I'm a huge fan of almost anything related to/taken from policy. I've always considered myself a much better judge than I ever was a competitor. I'm open to evaluating almost* anything, and will vote on pretty much anything that is defined as a voting issue during the round. I prefer to not have to do a lot of work at the end of the round, so make sure to make everything clear by the end of it. Strike up a conversation with me before the round and I can explain this sort of thing more clearly to ya'll.

I tend to evaluate framework first, then case.

Do not have your coach come into the room, ask the other competitor/team to disclose, and then leave the room with them to prep against them. I will be upset and it will not look good on you.

I like to give lots of feedback at the end of the round, and explain my decision as fully as possible, so if you need to feel free to cut me off.

*don't be purposefully offensive/edgy

Millard West '14, University of Nebraska-Lincoln '18, Head coach at Burke.

She/Her/Hers pronouns

From 2011-2014, I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater in a very traditional Nebraska circuit. I have very little experience with circuit (policy-style LD) debate, but am willing to learn as long as the debater:

- does not speed, a brisk pace is preferred. Enunciate/slow down for author names and contention taglines.

- limits circuit jargon

- please no T unless ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or I will roll my eyes at you. Especially paragraph T shells, good lord.

- explains and extends the warrant for each argument: do not merely read a card name as extension. I'll give more leniency to the aff with this but I need at least an "Extend contention 1 Jones card that says that the living wage closes the wage gap because X."

- links impacts through the framework

- I really don't like CPs in LD, but if it happens, it happens.

Mainly know that I'm a more traditional LD judge. Raised under Fred Robertson's guidance. If you wouldn't run it past him, don't run it past me.

Public Forum

In Public Forum I expect well-explained links into arguments and detailed analysis. It isn't enough to slap down a card and tell me that the evidence is newer/weighted more--explain why your evidence is better or better applied. Quality of contentions is better than quantity; I'd rather have you do a few things well than have many points with shallow reasoning and analysis. Speed is not a problem as long as you are very clear, but if it even gets close to spreading or if you have poor enunciation you will be in trouble. Maintain round decorum at all times; this includes giving trigger warnings where appropriate and providing alternative arguments if someone asks you not to use a triggering argument. Also, some judges like snappy or passive-aggressive CX, but I am not one of those judges. You don't get points for being a jerk. Be genuinely kind while remaining firm and you will get better speaker points from me.

Public Forum in not Lincoln-Douglas. Framework is possible, but do not make it the centerpiece of your case. I judge on evidence and impacts, not abstract theories and possibilities. Also, observations that are on the cusp of abuse do not sit well with me; Debate must be debatable.

While identity politics are important and can inform a round, do not rely on them exclusively. Belonging to a particular group does not absolve the burden of your side in the round, nor does it give you an automatic advantage. Rely on your case and evidence; if an argument is offensive it is fine to point that out, but you must explain to me why that matters in the larger scheme of the round. 

Lincoln-Douglas

In Lincoln-Douglas I look for contentions that link well with the framework and a detailed analysis and explanation of the framework. I am more familiar with traditional value and criterion-based frameworks, but as long as you do a good job of explaining your case to me I can usually keep up. I do enjoy high theory or off-the-wall cases and kritiks, but only if you explain the reasoning clearly to me. If I can't understand the framework due to a lack of explanation, I will have to default to my own reasoning in the world of the round in order to judge. Also, while I believe Debate is an intellectual game, I can also believe that my ballot can have a role if you lay out a good reason for that clearly for me. 

Please be very respectful of your opponent in round. Some people love to get snippy in CX or throw out little jabs, but I hate that. For better speaker points from me, be polite but firm. You don't get points for being a jerk.

Spreading is risky, as you must be very clear to make sure I can follow you; for reference, what would be considered "fast" for PF would be a comfortable pace for me. Anything faster I will still probably be able to catch most of it, but if you want to do well without risk, you will speak at a pace I can easily understand.

I spent my high school career debating Lincoln-Douglas. After graduating in 2012, I have consistently judged LD in Nebraska. I am more familiar with traditional debate but am open to accept more progressive positions as long as there is a clear claim, warrant, and impact. I strive to be "tabula rasa" when evaluating debate. Just make sure to do your job and convince me why I should vote in your favor.

Speed: I am not a fan of speed. I can keep up most of the time. However, attempting to speed can certainly negatively impact the debater if I'm not able to efficiently flow. I will clearly express if you're going too fast by not flowing and giving you a confused look.

Arguments: I am open to almost every type of argument as long as it is warranted and clear.

Theory: I will vote if very clear abuse is present. However, unless its absolutely necessary I will be upset with you if you turn the debate into a theory round because you lack substantial responses to your opponents case. I am a big fan of discussing the actual resolution.

Overall, I am a fairly traditional judge. Yet I have experience debating and judging more progressive debate. Demeanor and decorum are important to me. Presentation is important. However, I will ultimately vote for the winner of the best arguments.

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.

Hi! I'm what they call an "old" judge now. I coached for 13 years, but I've been out since 17, so I know things have changed.

My big issues/preferences are this:

Organization. You should be telling me at all times where I should be looking on my flow. If not, I can't guarantee I'm extending what you claim you are.

I think of LD rounds as a scale. The aff begins to tip it to their side, and the neg balances it out. However, if the neg doesn't give me anything to tip it to their side (i.e. offense more than "you can't affirm"), then it's a level scale, not one tipping towards the neg.

I have a degree in Broadcast Journalism, which means I had to study case law and governmental regulations in America, for what it's worth.