I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

I am and have been the coach at LHS for the last 9 years. I was also the 2021 NSDA's National Coach of the Year.

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

*I will NOT vote on: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, anything other bigotry. Please just be cool people.

*If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.


CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

**Policy Philosophy**

Small update 12/7/2016

I officially hate T debates on this year's topic, specifically the QPQ/Not QPQ debate. Go for T at your own risk.

The rest Updated 10/28/2015

About me: I’ve been coaching policy since 2008. I was at Omaha-Westside 2008-2012, and Millard North 2012-Present.

The short version: I’ll evaluate the debate the way the debaters tell me to. I don’t think debate should be any one thing. The beauty of policy is that it’s constantly changing to suit the will of the debaters. I care significantly more about the educational outcomes of debate than pure gamesmanship. If you’re debating in a style that you’re passionate about (policy-making included), I’m a good judge for you so long as you can justify what you’re doing. Some of my teams run straight-up policy arguments, others don’t read plans.

The argument biases below aren’t set in stone. I try my best to evaluate the debate according to the arguments made in the round, not my predispositions.

Speed: I can flow whatever speed you toss at me as long as you’re clear. That being said, I’d prefer if you slowed down about 15% so that I have a little more time to process what you’re saying. Frankly, I enjoy debates more that are a little slower—but debates are about the debaters, so don’t pay too much attention to that.

If I can’t understand what you’re saying I’ll tell you to be clear once or twice. After that you're on your own.

Topicality: I'm probably not  the best judge for T if the aff is about a core controversy of the topic. 

I've generally voted neg on topicality in debates where the negative has provided a clear, limiting interpretation of the topic. The aff was in good shape when they gave warrants behind breadth over depth and/or talked about the quality of the ground the differing limits provide (limits should be about the quantity and quality of cases). I default to reasonability if neither side says a word about it, but I defer to the flow and usually end up deciding based on competing interpretations.

Theory: It’s your burden to prove rejecting the argument doesn’t solve your objections. You'll have a tough time convincing me to vote on dropped cheap shots. Limited conditionality, topical CPs, and functional PICs are probably good. Counterplans that include the possibility of doing the entire plan are probably bad.

Kritiks: Do your thing. I’m pretty well informed on most arguments, but you can’t be sure I know your personal favorite. Specificity makes for better debating.

DAs/CPs: Sure, go for it. I’m getting less thrilled by politics debates as time goes on, but I’ll evaluate it fairly. Case-specific PIC/DA combos are probably my favorite strategies.

Framework: Mike Baxter-Kauf says it best: "There are really 2 different arguments that people lump under the tag “framework.” One is a question of how we should think in response to a given question: these are defenses of pragmatism, realism, empiricism, etc. These are legitimate questions which are a focus of any intelligent response to a criticism. The other is “they ran an argument with big words so we should get to not answer it and still win.” I hate this argument ,like whoa, do I hate this argument. Don’t get me wrong, I vote for it, but I hate doing it and the the threshold for rejecting it is pretty low. You are way better off answering the thesis of the argument and defending your approach to whatever the question is (YOUR epistemology, YOUR ontology, etc.)"

No Plan/Alternative Styles: I'm friendly to this when it's not used as a method of avoiding clash. If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, I want to watch you debate. If you try to be shifty and 'no link' out of positions that clearly link to your advocacy, don't be surprised when I give the other team more credibility on their framework arguments. It will also probably hurt your speaker points. That being said, I am increasingly wary of how intellectually limiting traditional interpretations of the resolution are. If you're germane to the topic and present a debatable advocacy, I'm interested in what you have to say.

Other stuff:

When I read evidence after the round, it's generally to get more context for the arguments made in the debate. I won’t give you credit for warrants that weren’t explained in-round.

I definitely value 'spin' over evidence.

I won’t judge-kick a counterplan and evaluate the status quo unless you explicitly make that an argument in the round.

Clipping cards is a serious offense. Get caught and you’ll lose the round with zero speaks.

Experience: I debated policy for four years at Sioux Falls Washington in SD. During that time, my partner(s) and I were State Champions, took 4th place at Nationals in 2012, and 9th place in 2013. I was also the 14th speaker in the nation my senior year. I now actively judge policy debate in NE and SD. On the Aff, I generally ran policy Aff. On the Neg, I was known for closing for DA/Case, DA/CP/Case, or Topicality.

General Paradigm: Know that I will listen to anything. I am interested in hearing the arguments that you enjoy debating the most. However, if no one in the round tells me how to evaluate, I default to a policymaking framework. Tied into all of this, I care most about warrants and evidence comparison. I prefer to hear well-developed arguments over a spread of warrantless claims and bad evidence. I’m down with speed though.

I care deeply about impact calculus when evaluating rounds. Therefore, I need specificity and comparisons when you are addressing these sort of framing concerns. This is especially important during the final speeches. I do not want to just hear the buzzwords magnitude, probability, and time frame. Extrapolate upon your unique framing.

On specific arguments...

Topicality: When done well, topicality can be a very effective tool. The problem is that many debaters do not know how to debate topicality well. If you’re going to close for T, I prefer that you spend your entire 2NR on the issue. I prefer specific, in-round abuse scenarios, but will vote on potential abuse if well explained. I also generally default to a framework of competing interpretations, valuing teams that can best explicate why their interpretation is valid. Note that I prefer T over generic theory arguments.

Theory: I will evaluate theory, but will say that I do not prefer these debates. Often I just hear blocks read with no real clash and violations that are woefully generic. Additionally, I don’t appreciate really blippy theory arguments early in the round that become round-changing in the rebuttals. Give your theory arguments substance from the beginning. If you’re going to run theory, make sure that it is grounded in what is happening in the round. Again, I prefer in-round abuse scenarios to potential abuse.

CP: I am definitely open to listening to CPs. That being said, make sure that your CP solves part, if not all, of the case advantages. Solvency deficit arguments from the Aff go far for me. It’s the burden of the Neg team to prove CP solvency.

DAs: I am a big fan of disadvantages. I do not have a problem with generic DAs, but prefer the links to be as specific as possible. However, I understand that there is not a lot of literature for diverse DAs this year, and will take that into account. I am always skeptical of internal link scenarios, and the Neg has to do more work here.

Kritiks: As someone who hardly ever ran critical arguments in high school, I will say that I am not as well-versed in K literature as I would like to be. However, in my time judging I have heard a fair number of performance Affs and Ks on the Neg. I am open to hearing these interesting debates, but just require some more warranting/overviews. As such, I will need more explanations of K arguments that might be less commonly run or unique. In particular, I want a focus on the link and alt stories. Most of the time I am highly skeptical of alternatives. If you don’t understand the evidence yourself, don’t run the K in front of me.  

Case: I am a big fan of case debate. I think that it is very important that the Affirmative team takes advantage of their 1AC and utilizes it throughout the round and across flows. There’s a reason you read it for 8 minutes. On the flip side, I really appreciate Negative teams that focus on debating the specifics of advantages and case solvency. You can really bolster your Negative strategy by taking out components of case.

At the end of the day, I want you to debate the round that you want most. As long as you are polite, engaged, and strategic, we should have a fun round!

Preface: I am a transgender woman and use she/her/hers pronouns. I can understand slipping up on accident, but if you intentionally misgender me in the round, or use the wrong name, you will receive 0 speaker points and you will automatically lose the round. If anything you are running has triggering content, specifically sexual violence or transphobic violence, you HAVE TO provide a trigger warning at the beginning of the speech, otherwise I will not vote for you and you'll receive 0 speaker points. Outside of these two things, there shouldn't be any issues between us.

Background: I debated at Millard West High School in Omaha, Nebraska for 2 years. I currently help out at Millard West and judge at local and regional tournaments. During my time debating, I ran everything from politics and CPs to performance affirmatives. I will generally vote on anything so long as the argument has a clear link and impact story, or can solve best. I also appreciate when debaters provide a wholistic explanation contextualized to either the affirmative or neg positions.

In general, just run what you want to run. After all this activity is about you after all.

Now to specific case positions and styles:

Disads: I personally am a fan of straight up disadvantages, so long as there is a specific link and clear impact story.

Politics: While I am generally not the most up to date with all the politics scenarios, I try to have an idea what is going on. However, I also believe that it can be an effective argument if there is a clear link story.

Counterplans: In most instances my philosophy on CPs are pretty straightforward, if you can prove that the counterplan solves better than the plan, or the perm functions, then I will most likely grant you the counterplan. However when it comes to PICs, I am fairly well versed in PIC theory and will generally lean aff if there is a sufficient explanation.

Topicality/Theory: unlike PIC theory, I do have a very high threshold for topicality and most theory arguments. It usually just turns into a timesuck that no one goes for, and therefore leads to uninteresting debates. However, to get my vote you will have to do 3 things: 1. provide a legitimate interpretation 2. give me a clear violation and how the plan doesn't meet the interpretation and 3. give an explanation of the harms of allowing the plan. Some topicality debates can be very good, and if you do the above I will be much more likely to vote on it.

Kritiks: I generally evaluate these in a very policy style way. If there is a clear link of how it links to the plan, and an alternative that can actually solve for the net benefit and/or the plan itself, then I will most likely grant you the position. For permutations, it's the same as on counterplans. When a role of the ballot is added, it gets more complex, but if you prove why your role of the ballot is best for the debate round, and why you solve for it best, I will grant you it. This goes for aff and neg.

Performance/non-topical affs: While I don't have much of an issue with these, I will still evaluate them in a very policymaker way. You will most likely need to provide a role of the ballot and answer it the same way as kritiks, however. You can run discourse positions too, just explain why it's better for the round and for me.

Misc:

-With flashing, I'm going to start where I will stop prep when the flash drive leaves the computer. Also do not steal prep after this is done.

-speed: I don't mind if debaters speed as long as they read the tag and cites clearly.

-I also sometimes call for evidence after round but it's not super common.