Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what it is. It is not the purpose of this type of debate to identify a solution or a plan to implement in order to fix the resolution. Instead, the purpose is to offer reasoning to support the principle that may be used to guide a decision.

Respect

Respect every judge, coach and opponent. We're all here because we want to be for different reasons. Enjoy the moment and learn from each round. I promise that this experience will resonate throughout your life.

Structure & Framework

This isn't rocket science - if you're going to do something outside of the norm, share that framework as you get started. I will judge on framework. Lincoln Douglas debate has key components of it's structure and I will lean on those components to determine the round.

Hint: the three primary components of the framework include a value premise, value criteria andargumentation.

This is LD debate. It is not Policy, Congress or Public Forum. Pragmatism and solvency are key elements of Policy debate. Having a value, criterion are key argments of your LINCOLN DOULGAS case is why you're here. Have them, defend them and tell me why yours is should be held over all else.

Speaking

Speak clearly, enunciate and be heard. That doesn't mean aggressively interrupting, yelling at or attacking our opponent. Competitive discussion is highly encouraged but attacking your opponent is poor form. If you want to talk at the speed of light, I'm perfectly capable of keeping up. Again...if I can't understand you (or hear you), once again, I can't vote on what you're sharing.

Non-interventionalist

Your job is to tell me what I should vote on. I won't make assumptions or guess where your argument needed to go. It is imperative that you reaffirm your cards and evidence. I also will not share or allow my personal biases to influence my vote. That said - if something is said in a round that is offensive or inappropriate, it will be noted and possibly discussed at the end of the round.

Burden of Proof

Both the affirmative and negative have a burden to prove the argumentation of their case. Both sides have an obligation for resolutional and argumentative decisiveness. The Aff should have the burden to prove the resolution and the Neg should doesn't have to prove that it's false, but it does need to prove that it can't be true. Bottom line - prove to me, and other judges the reason, the logic and the justification of your case.

About Me

I was a LD debater in high school and spent 25 years in Human Resources, and now I am an IT Program Manager (I get to play with cool technology toys). I have had 2 children debate and I love teaching and helping others learn more and become better, stronger communicators. I love judging and giving feedback. After a round if you want more feedback from me, I will always offer something constructive. My goal is simply to enjoy the day and give you tools to be a more effective debater.

Hi, I’m Evan Burns (he/him). I debated in LD for 4 years at Millard North and this is my first year out. I am currently studying actuarial science at UNL.

My email is evanburnsemail@gmail.com if you need to contact me; please include me in any email chain or speechdrop.

TLDR: Read whatever you have fun reading and win on the flow to get my ballot. More specific details are below. If you’re a novice go to the very end there is a section specifically to help you.

First and foremost, make sure your opponent can access the round. Unsafe and bigoted arguments will not be tolerated, this all should go without saying. If it needs saying within round, then you’ll lose and probably need to talk to your coach about it.

General Things

Tech>Truth. I vote based on who is winning the flow.

My goal when evaluating the round is to evaluate the flow with as little intervention as possible. In my mind, assuming or defaulting to some method of evaluating is intervention. What this means for you is I do my best to not vote on presumption or permissibility unless explicitly told a reason to. Tell me what matters in the debate and why, so I don’t have to baselessly make the decision what does.

Don’t assume I know your authors and assume I don’t have topic knowledge. The more complex a position you’re reading the more time you need to explain what that position actually is.

Extensions should have warrants. I want a warrant pulled through the entire round for me to feel good voting for an argument/impact.

Weigh your impacts, don’t make me decide which impact matters the most. Weigh why it matters under whatever framework/ROB/weighing mechanism you have. Do meta-weighing of which weighing mechanisms are the most important. Weigh, weigh, weigh; more weighing can almost always help you and almost always makes my job evaluating the round easier.

Judge instruction is good, it makes it much clearer to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t set aside time for giving judge instruction with me as your judge but do refer to how the line by line is contributing to you getting the ballot.

You know how to signpost; I shouldn’t need to ask you to do it.

Evidence sharing is a must in debate, speechdrop is easier for me but get your case to your opponent and myself however you want to.

I will vote for disclosure theory and lean towards disclosure being good. This doesn’t mean I always vote for disclosure, just win the argument or win the argument that disclosure is bad. In most instances it’s also worth asking before the round for the case and not just getting your disclosure shell ready.

Sit or stand, do whatever is comfy.

Cross-ex certainly exists. Don’t stall too much time in it or be too mean in it. I don’t flow it but I do pay attention. If you want to mention it in a future speech, go ahead just be sure to be specific with what was said during cx and what you are trying to get out of it.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters are fine with it.

Specifics

Trad/Framework: I am perfectly fine with these rounds and am very familiar with them. If this is how you want to debate don’t feel obligated to do something more complex just because I’m fine with more complex arguments. If I’m on a panel with judges who prefer trad debates, don’t think you’re boring me by going for their ballot, just try to win the flow and have some clash. Debating value is strategic in 1/10 trad rounds, before you argue why your value is so much more important than your opponent’s assess whether you are in a round where that is round. If your criterions/frameworks/single standards are different then clash between them is important otherwise I have 0 clue how to

Ks: Ks are fun read them with a couple specific things in mind. I am familiar with most stock Ks and can follow along with most Ks that are read some amount in debate. If you’re reading something especially obscure put in the legwork in explaining it more. Specific links are always better than generic. Be specific about what prefiat impacts you have (if any). Floating PIKs are shifty, you need to actually define your position. When responding to Ks I much prefer when the perms are specific and applied to the Aff you’re reading. With that in mind, perms=severance should have a specific reason why the Aff’s specific perm severs them from the 1AC. In general specificity will get you much further in most K debates.

K-Affs: As a debater I read these occasionally and have less to say about them. If you read one be ready for the T-fwk debate that follows. Topical K-Affs do exist but if you need to ask if you’re K-Aff is topical then it probably isn’t. Don’t waste everyone’s time by insisting your K-Aff is topical when it isn’t. It can be difficult to win that being non-topical is fair so don’t make that you’re primary strategy on the T-fwk debate.

Larp: Larp is not something I personally read a lot, but I’ve debated against it and am familiar with it. Read it if it’s what you want to do, I can keep up with whatever offs you want to read and will evaluate them on the flow. If you want to have a round about more of the theory of larp debate that’s where I’ll start to get a little lost if it gets too dense. When in doubt ask me or spend a little bit more time explaining than you usually would.

Phil: I am fonder of phil debates than most and am familiar with a number of authors; however, I am not fond of phil as a way to just get to presumption/skep/permissibility triggers. Read phil as a position you want to defend, not as a trick. That all being said I enjoy most phil positions if you’re trying to get some offense out of them. Read descriptive frameworks if you want to, they’re cool.

T/Theory: Theory is important to debate, that doesn’t mean it needs to be in every round. Theory that has a point is good, frivolous theory isn’t. I default to competing interps for theory and generally think every RVI should have an argument for why it exists built into it, but I am very open to being convinced a different way of evaluating theory debates is better. Make any arguments you want about what the best way for the judge to approach theory debates as you want. The paradigmatic issues in your shell is very important and skipping it is making the theory debate more difficult for you. The thing I care the most about in theory debates is getting from the standards to the voters. The most straightforward way of in why the standards your norm promotes link best into fairness and education. You can also use other voters than fairness and education, just justify them.

Tricks: Tricks are separate from theory because I don’t think tricks are important to debate. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on tricks but the threshold I have is if an argument takes 5 seconds to make and has half a warrant, then I don’t have a problem with your opponent spending 5 seconds on it and giving half a warrant against it. Blowing up a blip into half of your next speech is also not a good practice.

Speed: I’m fine with speed, but it’s good practice to check if your opponent is. Don’t start at you’re full speed and be sure to slow down for tags. Analytics should be differentiated and some amount slower than cards. All that said, the most important thing is clarity. It doesn’t matter how fast you are if nobody can understand you.

Speaks: Speaks are kind of arbitrary, I’m not going to be tanking your speaks but I’m not giving everyone a 30 because speaks still matter for breaks and seeding. 28.8-29.2 is what I consider to be average. You can make arguments about getting higher speaks in round, just have a warrant.

RFDs: My online RFD is usually more in depth than my verbal one, but if there is something specific you are curious about feel free to ask after round or find me later at the tournament. Arguing with me after round or post-rounding are probably not a good idea, but if you don’t understand or disagree with why I voted the way I did, try to ask questions to have a better understanding of where I might disagree with you.

Debate is supposed to be fun, don’t take it too seriously and have a good time.

Anything I might have missed you can email me or ask me in person and this paradigm will continue to be updated as I think of things I want to add.

FOR NOVICES

First just please signpost and tell me what argument you are responding to in your rebuttals it makes the round much less messy. If I don't know where to put an argument on the flow it is difficult to evaluate. Signposting only serves to help your arguments make it onto my flow.

In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. Don't just say, "Extend x because it was conceeded" to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round. The easiest way to do this is to explain why your impacts weigh the highest under both frameworks. I will evaluate the round by looking at which framework wins and then using that framework to see which debater has the most important impacts they are winning. This can be easily shown to me by saying at the end of the round, "Judge you vote Aff/Neg because X outweighs under Y framwork because of ABC. This impact happens because of DEF scenario."

In my RFD I will explain why I voted the way I did, what arguments factored into my decision, and which did not, as well as non-voting issues to help you become better debaters. If you have any questions about anything in the round feel free to ask.

Feel free to ask before round if you have any specific questions about my paradigm and good luck novices!

He/Him

E-Mail: quinncarlo024@gmail.com

MSHS Asst. Coach 2y, (Policy 3y, PF 1y)

ASL Interpreting major @UNO (1st language: English)

Debate is about the people and the experience, so be kind.

In my days I used to run trad left affs, and Cap Ks. I trust you'll help me understand whatever you run.

LD: LAST EDITED 2/23/2024 LD is about philosophy for me. I suppose that makes me trad now... I feel old.

FW: Winning FW means I will evaluate the round through that lens. FW is not an independent voter.

SPREADING: If you spread use SpeechDrop, AND DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS.

Ks: I've found that it is more difficult for me to buy a K AFF than anything else. That being said, I would love to engage in a discussion on K subject matters outside of the round.

• ROB: Vote for the better debater- to me means I’m looking at who cross-applied evidence well, who didn’t drop anything, who carried cards through their speeches, and other techy stuff.

THEORY: DON'T use theory as a means to win a ballot. Run theory if there is a genuine equity issue within the round.

• Disclosure Theory: If there is no in-round abuse (de-linking out of args), and/or your opponent gives you their case via SpeechDrop, I'm unlikely to vote for you.
• Spreading Theory: If your opponent asks before the round if they can spread and/or invites you to tell them to slow down, I'm unlikely to vote for you.

T: I am less likely to buy that the AFF needs to defend a specific plan as opposed to the general Value/Ethics of the Topic. Because LD is different from Policy.

→ Don't use other people's disadvantages to win you a ballot. Advocating for the rights of minorities as a majority can be fine if it is done in good faith, and you understand your case. If you are cishet advocating for the rights of queer people without knowing what it means, that's sketch.

General stuff:

· I should be fine with whatever kritik you run. I might not have the best knowledge of it so make sure to explain well, but my background knowledge should be passable.

· I’m fine with speed, just be clear.

· Debates with more clash usually end with more speaker points for both sides.

Policy:
First of all, these are just my biases. I won't actively vote you down based on this no matter what you say or something like that, I'm just trying to make my leanings a little more open. You can go against these things and still win, just be aware that it might be harder to do so.

· I think that topicality is an important issue that at least warrants discussion in some instances; however it may be difficult to win against an actively non-topical team because all levels of the argument need to be won for T to be won.

· I’ll have a hard time voting for traditional condo bad theory against one conditional advocacy, but multiple contradictory worlds are probably not okay.

· Counterplans are generally fine, but I am partial to abuse arguments against Plan inclusive Counterplans, or PICs, because they generally seem to be a thinly veiled way for the neg to frame the aff out of the round. If there is sufficient literature base for and against the PIC, I will probably give it more leeway than say the ‘the’ PIC.

NFA-LD:

Pretty much the same as policy. One difference is the rules. I think the fact that they are written down is important so it may be a bit harder to win Topicality bad, and stuff like that.

Also, for whatever reason framework positions seem to be a lot more important in this format (probably because of the time constraints being different). I like framework with a purpose, i.e. framework designed to get you something by forcing your opponent not to do some sort of abuse that makes your arguments on case or for disads better.

On speed: it's in the written rules, so it's important. I think that the bright line argument is important, especially if one side is only going a little fast, but I think in most cases you can tell the difference. I went fast when I debated, but that's not to say I won't ever vote for this argument (although I may never hear it so who can tell).

LD
I debated policy in high school, so I don't have perfect experience in LD. I have read most of the traditional ethical philosophers, or at the very least know the gist of what they say (mostly Rousseau and Hobbes here), along with a lot of the newer, more postmodern stuff. The one thing I don't have a lot of knowledge of is the weird framework positions. I should be able to follow what you argue, and I'll try my utmost to evaluate the way the debaters tell me too. I like to look to the value-criterion debate for impact analysis a lot.

On voting:
I’ve found that I tend to like more technical arguments as well as impact calculus when it comes to deciding a debate. What I mean by that is when you explain exactly how you win at the end of the round and why your impacts are important, I am more liable to vote for that argument than your opponent. Basically, I tend to lean towards well-structured dispassionate rebuttal speeches as opposed to passionate disorganized rebuttals because I find it easier to justify my ballots.

That should be all the technical stuff that people need to know. Just have fun in round and try to be nice to each other. I think that the debaters should always be the ones to define the rounds, so just have fun and do what you want to do and I'll try to go along with it. I'd definitely appreciate something new, because I think that creative arguments are what makes this activity fun, and what makes it stand out. As such, I'll probably be giving you more speaks if your arguments come across as innovative and polished. Grounding your arguments in reality (even if it's a very non-standard view of reality) effectively is a reliable way to seem more polished.

I have a preference for traditional style cases but limited experience or preference for progressive style cases; I approach debates with an open mind and a commitment to fairness and impartiality. While I may not have extensive familiarity with progressive arguments, I am willing to listen and evaluate them based on their merits within the framework of the debate.

When evaluating traditional-style cases, I look for clear structure, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who prioritize clarity of expression and adherence to established debate norms such as value criterion analysis and clash. I appreciate debaters who effectively use rhetoric and persuasion to support their positions. Additionally, I prefer debaters not to speed in their delivery, as clarity and comprehension are paramount in effective communication.

In regards to progressive style cases, while I may not be as familiar with the specific arguments and frameworks, I am still interested in learning and understanding new perspectives. I encourage debaters to explain their arguments clearly and provide sufficient context for me to evaluate their contentions. I value creativity and originality in argumentation, but I also expect debaters to maintain a level of coherence and relevance to the resolution.

My judging paradigm emphasizes the importance of clear communication, logical reasoning, and adherence to debate conventions. While I may lean towards traditional style cases due to my familiarity with them, I am committed to evaluating all arguments fairly and impartially, regardless of style or approach. Debaters can expect me to prioritize substance over style and to provide constructive feedback to help them improve their skills regardless of the type of case they present.

Email: jehenson00@gmail.com but I prefer speech drop

Background: First year out, I competed at Lincoln North Star in LD for all four years. I qualified to the TOC my junior year, and NSDA nationals my sophomore and senior. I’m now doing NFA-LD at UNL.

As a debater, I mainly went for identity K’s. I read a lot of different authors like Schotten, Puar, Muñoz, and Halberstam.

Tech > Truth

TLDR: Truly you can read anything you want, while I have my preferences I will evaluate the flow and vote on anything as long as it isn’t violent.

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any kind of ism or phobic. I will drop you if I feel the space has become unsafe. Meet any accommodations your opponent asks for.

Disclosure is good in the debate space and I will vote on disclosure theory.

Speed: It’s fine as long as you’re clear and slow down as tags.

Policy: Go for it. If you can read impact turns I really enjoy those.

Phil: I have some experience in more traditional phil (Rawls, Hobbes & Locke, Kant) and I really enjoy watching these debates. I don’t want them to boil down to tricks and different skep triggers.

Tricks: I would say you could run well-warranted tricks but those don’t exist. Tricks aren’t cute, just don’t.

T/Theory: Go for it, I really enjoy a good T debate. I default to competing interps.

K’s: I really enjoy K debate, however, don’t assume I know your lit. I can’t vote for anything I don’t understand, and it usually becomes obvious during cross if you know what you're talking about. I’m most familiar with queerness, fem, setcol, and ableism.

K Aff’s: I love non-topical affs. The one thing I would say is you're probably not going win your fair, I believe it's better to just go for impact turns but I’ll evaluate anything on the flow. I think that framework is a strong argument against K aff’s and will vote on it if well articulated.

I am a former policy and congress debater from the Kansas City, MO circuit. I am a stock issues judge, and will ask that you stick primarily to them throughout the debate. I really cannot stand extinction impacts, whether climate, nuclear war, or anything (exception for util value/criterion). Additionally, I almost never pick up pre-fiat K's, unless you just debated better than your opponent. Any questions can be emailed to ethank6398@gmail.com.

Policy: Why stock issues: I believe this is the most fair interpretation of policy in the "spirit of debate" simply because each team will have its advantages and disadvantages to having to focus on these issues. While it may seem particularly advantageous for the neg to be able to only topple one of the stock issues and win, the aff has the clear advantage of being able to have essentially limitless prep time to prepare for these rebuttals. I will judge the round assuming these advantages. Ultimately, the AFF should spend considerable time establishing Topicality, Significance, Harms, Inherency, and Solvency as it relates to the specific plan text. The NEG should focus on one or more of these items in an attempt to "knock out" one of these core pillars.

LD: I have a fairly limited understanding of LD from an experience standpoint, but I am quite familiar with philosophy and the core arguments that you might be presenting. If you're worried that I might not correctly interpret more complicated philosophy, either dedicate more time to clearing this up or perhaps decide to run a different case. I have judged a fair amount of LD rounds, so that shouldn't be an issue. On CPs...how can you run a counter-PLAN if there wasn't a first PLAN! Also, please no AFF K's, that also doesn't really make sense either.

Public Forum: I have participated in public forum rounds before, and have quite a bit of familiarity with it generally. I have judged dozens of PF rounds, so I don't think that I would have any issues with anything that you'd possibly be doing.

General:

- A lot of the time, if each side's case are fairly even, I will likely be evaluating you based on the choices you made in the round, the quality of questions asked/answered, etc. Ultimately, if things are pretty even through case, I will pick the debater who was a slightly better debater in the round.

- Speed isn't a general concern, but considering this is a public speaking competition at it's core, if you aren't clearly demonstrating your points, evidence, etc. then your speaker points will probably reflect that. Just make sure that if you're going to spread, you do it REALLY well. Overall, I really do prefer speaking at a normal pace, simply from a fairness/competitive viewpoint. I should also note that if you're not extremely clear in what you're saying, I will not evaluate something just because you acted like you said it. (For example, just giving me the speech doc is not enough, you MUST be clear in exactly what you're saying.)

- I really am not a huge fan of K debate. I think it's generally pretty poorly designed and executed, so I'd appreciate you staying away from it. If you're going to run one, make it clean and concise, and not too technical.

- I am totally fine with disads in Policy and LD. I also like CPs, but don't really believe that they work in LD... so run at your own risk, or just ask me.

- Neg: If you clearly aren't winning a point, please feel free to drop it. I would rather the debate focus around 1-2 serious points of contention than to have to hear rehashing of the same points throughout the entire round. I think this makes for a much healthier debate round, and again reflects my philosophy on the "spirit of debate."

- I try to be fairly blank slate when it comes to my previous knowledge and background of certain subjects. That is, I believe it to be the responsibility of the opposition to challenge a card or idea's legitimacy and that it should be addressed in round (if it isn't, I'll take it as truth). However, in circumstances where I believe the card or claim to be potentially especially egregious, I may request that you provide me that documentation.

she/her/hers. I am a cynical person.

-

Apparently, I vote affirmative 51% of the time. Sorry about that.

If your opponent says that your authors need to be a particular identity, I am fully expecting you to say that all of your authors are that identity. Lying is okay if your opponent is needlessly shifting the goalposts. Likewise, you do not win if your authors are x identity. That's literally anti-intellectual.

A K/CP must fulfill each: Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. If I don't understand your alt, that's probably bad. You should try to win something other than the CP.

I don't enjoy topicality debates. Yes, you should be topical. I do not care to adjudicate what is not topical enough. I will typically err on the side of 'more topical is better.' Theory arguments exist. I think they are rather boring. I do not vote on "norm setting." Fairness is a voter.

A good round discusses philosophy. I will vote on any cogent argument. This is not an invitation to read Kant. This IS an invitation to read extinction good.

The 2AR is not where you extend all the things you didn't have time to mention in the 1AR. If I vote on any late extensions, it's because I considered the round a coinflip.

NEBRASKANS:if you show me undeniable proof before round, that you've read indexicals in two rounds this year at local tournaments, then I'll give you +0.5 speaks than I otherwise would have. Depending on who the judge(s) was/were in that round and the importance of the round, I might give you even more.(One of the rounds cannot have been in front of me).

Dear Novices: I very much love and appreciate you, but will a little more if you 1. have some framework interaction (tell me why I should use your framework and why I shouldn't use your opponent's) and 2. do some impact weighing (explain why your impact(s) is the most important compared to the others in the round). Keep up the good work!! you can ignore the rest of my paradigm.

Online: I wasn't very good at flowing online debate so please speak clearly and use inflection in your voice to emphasize key things you want me to get down.

For the email chain or whatever feel free to shoot me an email: iansdebatemail@gmail.com

My Debate background:

I debated 4 years at Millard North, 2 years of policy, and 2 years of LD. I had success on a mixed bag local circuit(progressive and traditional), winning tournaments and speaker awards. I was okay on the national circuit, breaking at some tournaments. I qualified for Nationals 3 years. I was a flex debater running mostly Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.

Currently on my demon time as an assistant coach at Millard North, coaching LD.

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Larp- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to:

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility affirms, Presumption negates.

No RVIs(it's not hard to convince me otherwise though.)

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

I tend to give pretty high speaks, 28.5= Average Debater. I base speaks on efficiency and the quality of your arguments, I don't care how pretty you speak so long as I can understand you.

Be Nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive (Racism, queerphobic, etc.)

Event Specific:

LD & Policy- I'll evaluate these two the same way.

Larp: Didn't do much of this in either event, just make sure you give me a justified framing mechanism so I can evaluate and weigh impacts, instead of just assuming I care, I.E. if you make Cap good impact turns on a cap k even if you end up winning them, if your opponents ROB is the only framing mechanism your impact turns mean nothing (unless you articulated a way in which they weigh under the ROB).

Phil: I read a good amount of phil, I'm fine with Normative or Descriptive frameworks. I read Kant, Hobbes, Functionalism(or constituivism), Realism(IR), International Law, Contractarianism, and maybe some others that I can't remember.

T/Theory: You can see some of my general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are my lens in which I use to evaluate the theory debate and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you do weighing between your arguments don't just repeat your arguments verbatim in the rebuttals and expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (In front of me yes policy kids you can debate paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI.)

Kritiks: I mess with Kritiks, one thing I'll generally note on them is that their ROBs are typically impact justified, either don't have a impact justified framing mechanism or explain why being impact justified is good or doesn't matter (if this is an issue brought up). I'm most familiar with Modernist Cap ks. I'm familiar with D(& G), Puar, Buadrillard, Foucault, Agamben, Afropessimism, Queer pessimism, maybe some others you can always ask. Please still explain your arguments, I will try my best not to commit the sin of judge intervention by doing work for anyone.

Tricks: I ran tricks a little bit, they're fun please just make sure they're clearly delineated and are actually warranted and implicated in the first speech that they're made in. Also try to read them slower.

PF- Never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism in which I can evaluate the round and weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand.

Congress- I did congress once, if I end up judging, you should probably try to appeal to the other judges more, I don't care how you speak, I like clash and I like the content of what you're saying.

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

Evidence sharing - yes please. Would prefer to get word docs but would rather have something rather than nothing.

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a disappointing lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier. I've especially noticed the more pedantic impact/internal links/interps/etc. the less likely I am to give it a bunch of weight.

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

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.

Hi my name is Arjun(they/them)

-Millard North '23; UNL '27

-I'm a Biochem major and don't think about debate a lot, chances are my topic knowledge is negative. Be clear, and clarify the acronyms please and thank you.

-LD/Policy

-3 Years of Debate: 3 LD, 1 Policy {3rd year was mixed} I'm very flex when it comes to speeches --- I have given all possible speeches from the 1A to the 2NR.

-I have competed in all events tho

-A few achievments of mine, not that it matters: broke at a handful of natcirc tournaments and got to a couple bid rounds but never really got a bid cuz no sweating senior year! I was also the Policy State Champion among others.

-I now debate NFA-LD (One person policy) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and dabble into some NDT tournaments sometimes.

=====Pref Shortcut=========

1: Policy, T, Theory [See: RVIs]

2: K [There is a rank of Ks I'm familiar with in the K section]

3: Phil [This is solely because of how people explain phil in debate - I will not use outside knowledge for you.]

4: Trix (I do not dislike tricks. I will vote on them, however these debates are often just blipstorms that end up being really messy. I just don't think they're strategic or good arguments)

====Houston Update: HS CX=====

I am very unfamiliar with acronyms/jargon y'all r using, do some explanation of the complex economic phenomenon if you are reading some complex economic analysis with heavy procedure and/or a process cp abt how the govt should pass the AFF. I have topic knowledge, but treat me as a novice with regards to the meta and the jargon. (For some base line, you do NOT need to explain what the gini coefficient is).

Start the speech with 70% speed, and gradually increase it. I am not that fast at typing and if I miss something thats on you. Pls be clear:)

Good with 9 off go crazy make the round interesting, make me happy or entertained and I will reward you with speaks.

==========================

Actual paradigm:

-Important things are bolded.

-Tech > Truth

-Scroll down to know debate opinions

Random thoughts, DOs and DON'Ts:

-Will judge your speech docs. Aesthetic documents and good organizing will be rewarded. Bad docs won't be punished but will defo make me cringe/annoyed at worst.

-Again, it's kinda sad that I have to say this, but DON'T make args that make the debate space unsafe. I will literally drop you so fast if I think you are being racist/sexist/queerphobic and all those bad things and end all your hopes of winning a speaker award with that too.

- UPDATE: DO NOT IMPACT TURN COLONIALISM. I will intervene and demand an explanation. Please use your common sense regarding what parts of Ks to turn. (Y'all think this is a joke I'm being serious I have seen this happening)

That's it. Expect feedback and ask questions after the round(even if you won, this is bolded for a reason). The judge is a resource you can use on improving yourself. I will accept post rounding; honestly I get it lol anger is justified if you tried your best. Just keep it civil or else i will just walk out of the room.

=====Novices======

A few words of advice before the round:

-Idc if you want to send the doc or no but if you are, here's my email, feel free to ask me questions on this email: arjdebate@gmail.com

-Side Note: if we're doing email chain: PLEASE use word. I hate google docs for debate, the docs are always so janky. If you're sending it over and are still using docs for some reason, Make sure that your opponent can highlight, download, access the doc, whatnot. I do not wanna see you un-adding people to the doc after the round is over.

-Debate's a game and I appreciate you spending your weekend on this activity. The overall goal for this activity is to have fun and learn. The educational value of debate is precious- try and preserve it. I appreciate jokes during speech and all but save the meme stuff for when you're in varsity

-A pet peeve of mine is talking over someone when its not your cx. If its your cx sure cut your opp off your opp should know when you want them to stop talking. You can be firm, but please see to it that your opponent isn't crying. I really do not want to deal with that. If it is not your CX, don't start it or talk over your opponent. I also will probably not be actively paying attention to cross bc i don't care; I will be listening in the background; but if something important is going on just say my name or call me out and I'll start paying attention.

-I recognize that there is no tab judge and all judges have their biases but i will try my best to keep those aside. Mainly I'm more persuaded by descriptive fws and extinction impacts that's all you should know

-Please do not try to go for lay appeal if you are losing the round, I will cringe so hard. I am generally not that persuaded by lay appeals. How you speak will not determine this round for me, but it might get you better speaks.

-Apart from that, you do you, I do not care if you sit/stand, shout, do whatever you want to do with how you speak etc. I want it to be known that the round is a chill area where y'all are having fun, not stressing over folds in your dress or other kinds of nonsense. You are here to debate, and I am here to judge; end of story. I will not vote on things concerning issues outside of that room or concerning how your opponent dresses/talks etc.

================================

-----GENERAL-------

How I will evaluate the debate:

-I am a flow judge: I will vote on what is in my flow. If it isn't; it wasn't clear enough for me (Yes, judges can make mistakes, but I trust myself enough to not make risky decisions). I am more than happy to drop you if I cannot explain the argument I am voting for. [This does not mean I will intervene or am truth > tech, rather that I need a warrant/justification for why I am voting for you. No matter how ridiculous the warrant is, it NEEDS to be there.] Typically, my ballot ends up being for the side that is the easiest path or wins the key argument [The highest layer of the debate] in the round - Be it impact calc, solvency, etc, there needs to be a critical issue in the round that I can pull the trigger on because I do not want to do work --- Water takes the path of least resistance, and so do I.

------------------------

========Defaults===========

-Util

-No RVI

-Competing Interps

-P&P NEG

=========================

Event Specific:

=======LD=======

Start with the highest layer, evaluate the rest later. I will vote for the path of least intervention, I hate intervening and will be instantly displeased if I have to intervene to decide the winner. If it comes to that point, I will be voting on whoever gets presumption.

1] Framework:

-I start my decision with the framing mechanism: I will view the round through your framework if you win it. This doesn't mean you win the debate, just that I will prefer impacts you make. If there is no framework, I will default to consequentialism/util

[Note for TRAD]:

-if you're doing the whole value criterion thing: Please please please please kick the value debate. I do not want to hear a debate on morality vs justice- in debate they're the same thing to me. Also fine w/ single standard stuff if you don't wanna do a v/c. Just lmk how to evaluate the round idc how you do it.

2] Impact Calc:

-After framework, I look to impact calc. Tell me who has the biggest impact, weigh it against your opponents, and PLEASE engage in the line by line.

-I love impact calc debates, please do not try to spoil that for me.

3]Judge instruction:

-Write the ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you.

-If I don't see proper warranting, weighing, etc I vote neg on presumption. Simple. I will not be doing the work for you. Tell me why your case/args matters or I will consider it trash.

===================================

=========Policy============

I know these events are different but I will be evaluating them more or less the same. See debate opinions for specifics. There isn't rlly a framing mechanism for policy except for vs K debates but that's more or less alr addressed.

Give me interesting strats, pls don't go for 9-off ASPEC that isn't impressive at all. I love cheaty cps, be as shameless as you can be. If you are going for 2 Ks pls be aware of how the lit between the 2 interacts, lol pls dont run qp and queer op at the same time. Anything goes, j be nice.

=========================

=========PF&Congress===========

• I have competed in these events but I still don't how these events work. God forbid I judge either of these events, I wish you all the best if I am judging you.
• PFers pls for the love of god almighty read proper cut cards and let me know when you're reading a card vs doing your own commentary.

=============================

Helpers but not Round winners: (from Evan Burns!)

First just please signpost and tell me what argument you are responding to in your rebuttals it makes the round much less messy. If I don't know where to put an argument on the flow it is difficult to evaluate. Signposting only serves to help your arguments make it onto my flow. To incentivize this I will reward you with good speaks for ample signposting and punish you ever so slightly for bad signposting.

In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. "Extend x because it was conceded" is not a warrant I can pull the trigger on; I would prefer to see some effort to address that issue --- it takes 1 second to explain the warrant. I will mark CPs as "dropped" if not extended --- that doesn't mean you lose the argument, j that I will not consider it unless there is a turn on it. If there is a turn on it pls j say concede the turn its condo we're kicking no offence. It takes 2 seconds. Preferably, to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round. The easiest way to do this is to explain why your impacts weigh the highest under both frameworks. I will evaluate the round by looking at which framework wins and then using that framework to see which debater has the most important impacts. This can be easily shown to me by saying at the end of the round, "Judge you vote Aff/Neg because x outweighs under y framework because of abc."

=====Debate Opinions========

-I recognize that there is no tab judge and all judges have their biases but i will try my best to keep those aside.

-Presumption

Alr. Lets address this: Both Presumption & Permissibility go NEG unless otherwise told. I am easily convinced for either side, the argument j needs to be there. But my default will always go NEG unless there is another argument. Yes, even if the neg reads an alternate advocacy.

-Theory & trix:

- I will vote on it. However, if you want to go down this path and cannot execute it properly, your chances at the ballot, and a speaker award will go down drastically. But, proper execution will be rewarded with a W and high speaks. Do not pretend as if you do not know your own lit when asked about it in cross: you should be prepared to debate/explain what you said in the 1NC/AC. If you can't, then don't read it --- It's that simple. Please try to be genuine to opponents who are unfamiliar with your lit, it's the least you can do.

- I default no RVIs for LD and Policy. It will be tough for me to buy an RVI in LD but it's possible based on the egregiousness of the shell. In Policy I will never vote on an RVI, sorry lol.

- If someone reads trix against you, make an RVI against every single one of them!

- Not of a fan of traditional tricks, be creative and you might j impress me. No, I don't like determinism. If it is conceded, you still have to win presumption/permissibility.

Ks:

Sure.

Make sure to have a ROTB, alt etc

ROTB should preferably not be impact justified. But, if you impact turn cap and lose the ROTB, I still have no choice but to vote neg [yes, i know that the ROTB then justifies a bad thing, but unless that argument is made, I cannot make that argument for you. This arg should not be hard for you to win if you are winning the impact turn].

You need to win the alt or the K is fundamentally NUQ. [Unless ofc the k is some sort of a reps K]

Not a fan of PIKs [Unless creative]

Specific links > Generic links

Link turns the case is an excellent argument that is very underused.

You need to win a risk of Impact D to prove a link to the security K.

Out-framing your opponents is a key part of this strategy. Don't be afraid to say outrageous things on the framework page lol. At the same time, be prepared to debate those outrageous statements.

AFF should probably get to weigh the case against the K. [Unless you are winning FW which is not hard for me to flip either side of the aisle]

For larpers trying to impact turn Ks with heg good all that, pls pls establish how it turns the K. Don't just read heg good and expect me to vote for you on it. [Again, needs to be properly executed. I will not hack for you if you run with "extinction outweighs haha!" with 0 warrants and fail to engage with anything]

For reference, I have delved a lot into K theory. Chances are whatever K you are reading, I am familiar with it or have seen it being read. I am comfortable with most Ks on this ranking:

Note: Don't just read this and bust out the baudrillard NC, I will not hack for you if you read nonsense. I still need to understand what you are saying and I will not fill in the gaps for you.

1: PoMo, Stock Ks and Queer Theory [Muñoz, Edelemen, Edelmen spinoffs, Baedan, Bataille, Baudy, Psycho and psycho spinoffs [race, existentialism etc], Cap and its spinoffs [Anarchism, Marx, Bifo etc], SetCol, Fem IR, security, etc

2: Queer Theory[Puar specifically] Afropess(Not bc I don't like it, I j don't know enough and by far am not an expert on this part of literature)

3: Reps Ks. Unless something egregious has happened that warrants intervention, I will not be happy listening to reps Ks, word PIKs etc. If you get up in the 1AR and read a new reps k and you end up linking to it, you will get an L20.

4: Weird Ks,

These Ks make me cringe but I will still vote on it: Deleuze[If you can explain deleuze properly yes, its a 1. I have a HIGH threshold for explaining deleuze. PLS don't make use of jargon that you and I both don't know] [If you read tankie stuff it will leave a distaste in my mouth.], Schopenhauer as a K doesn't make much sense to me, Berlant, Lenin(Seriously wtf), Orientalism(pls j read a security K), IR Ks (Grove, Lib Mil, etc), Asian Ks, Asian pess(seriously?) and the Death K(policy i know i just killed all your ground).

If debated evenly i think condo justifies a perfcon

-K Affs and Tfwk

I slightly lean neg on fwk unless you impact turn fwk which I will then weigh on an equal level. [I love impact turns]

If you are going to run a k aff in front of me, please impact turn tfwk instead of insisting that your aff is topical. I find impact turns to t much much more persuasive rather than obscure definition debates about the k interpretation of the topic or whatever.

CI must exist. You should defend an alternate model distinct from being T.

I will weigh the CI and the shell on the same level unless told otherwise

No RVIs on T. Counter standards aren't Voting issues. The inevitable silencing/exclusion DA should have proper warranting.

Good tfwk debates must answer the question "why" on multiple levels [Why in debate, why this round, why this ballot, what will Arjun's ballot change etc], "what debate should be/ should be instead" and contest the spillover claim if made.

I'm slightly more comfortable with the fairness side of the debate since that is what I always went for; but I'm cool with the education/testing 2nr too. I like the testing DA on an education 2nr.

Prevent the 2AR from pulling an is/ought fallacy

-Random thoughts on authors and other phil stuff:

I'm comfortable enough with a lot of authors to competently evaluate a round. While I haven't read these positions, I do a lot of outside debate reading of these authors and will be sad if you butcher these:(

To name a few authors like Kant, camus, sartre, macintyre, civic republicanism, Hobbes some random other phil authors. -I LOVE DESCRIPTIVE FWS! But, I will not automatically hack for you if you run these positions. You will be held to a standard.

I don't have much familiarity with Nietzsche, policy kids: don't j read my paradigm and pull out some quirky ass K.

-LARP/Policy Stuff

-Huge fan. Most of my debate career involved this kind of debate.

CP/DA:

Starting with CP section:

-Yes! love them.

-Loooove GOOD conditions CPs. [If it has an actual solvency advocate]

-Cheaty Process CPs are very nice. I mostly lean neg on theory

-Not a fan of Delay.

-Perms vs 16 plank adv CPs or artificially competing CPs are not intrinsic. But, this argument has to be made in round, and warranted properly.

-Must have a NB.

Thoughts on competition:

-CP solvency. As long as it solves enough [establish sufficiency framing in round] of the aff and has a NB. Not a huge fan of textual competition, chances are if the CP competes f'nally I'm more likely to lean NEG. Real world explanation is a good litmus test --- don't j say stuff like oh climate change is an issue? CP: USFG should solve climate change. "Aff solves better" is not a real argument---Find a different deficit.

-Neutral on limited intrinsicness. It kinda depends on the cp ig? Be prepared to defend a brightline

-Aff needs to be able to defend an oppurtunity cost.

-If the NB isn't intrinsic/germane to the aff, I give the aff more leeway for the perm ("limited intrinsicess"). The more germane the NB is, the more I lean neg.

Condo:

I don't like the "1 vs 2 off" condo debate. That brightline is sooooo arbitrary. Don't be a coward, defend condo good/bad as a whole.

Slight neg bias, but its a sliding scale: the more conditional advocacies, the more I will give aff leeway with condo. In LD 3+ condo is probably the brightline for me where I will start giving the aff some sort of credence. Policy i kinda dont care

DA:

-Love 'em.

-Sucker for turns/ows case. [Again, needs to be properly executed. I will not hack for you if you run with "extinction outweighs haha!" with 0 warrants and fail to engage with anything]

-Impact calc wins debates --- make sure yours does.

-Establish the link. UQ probably controls the link. Zero risk is probably a thing [unless told otherwise].

T/Topicality:

-Love to see it.

-Nebel/Subsets sucks.

-Legit T shells and clashy debates on T make me very happy.

-No RVIs on T.

-If the 2NR is going for T, the entire 2nr should probably be on T.

-The winner of the T debate wins the round: aff doesn't have to extend case if it is dropped.

-Idc if you read T as a timesuck. I used to do it all the time lol

==============

good luck.

Pronouns: He/him/his

I would strongly prefer us to use SpeechDrop but my email: zeinsalehemail@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

K- 1

T/Theory/Policy- 2

Phil- 2/3

Tricks- Strike

Background: 5 years of LD/NFA-LD @ Lincoln North Star & UNL. Competed on the local + national circuit. NE state champion in 2021 and 2022.

As a debater I often went for: Critical/Soft Left Affs, CPs/DAs, Ks (Islamophobia, Cap, Militarism), T, and a tiny bit of phil (Prag, Particularism).

Tech > Truth

Summary: ***Generally, read whatever you want. I have my preferences but feel free to convince me differently. I will ultimately vote off the flow and what arguments are best warranted/extended by the end of the round.

Disclaimer: Debate should be an educational and safe space for all students. Any exclusionary rhetoric will obviously not be tolerated. You should give content warnings for graphic depictions of violence and be accessible to students who need accommodations.

Disclosure is good. I will vote on disclosure theory.

Speed: 7-8 is fine if you are clear. It is in your favor to slow down on tags, interps, plantexts, analytics etc. Signpost. Pause for a second between different sheets.

Policy: Go for it. Good Impact turn debates (dedev, heg bad/good) are interesting. Bad impact turn debates (extinction good) are not. I like unique DAs with strong internal links. I strongly dislike nuclear terrorism scenarios.

Counterplans need a net benefit. PICs, Consult, Agent CPs etc are all fine. Condo is fine, although I'm convinced 2-3+ condo sheets in LD is abusive.

Phil: I didn’t read much phil in high school but am familiar with some authors (Rawls, Hobbes, Kant, Butler, Mcintyre, Levinas). Please slow down on analytical justifications for your framework. I think you should have some offense under your framework rather than two sentences that relate to the topic.

Tricks: No. Also not a fan of permissibility, moral skepticism, or other similar LD shenanigans. Make real arguments.

T/Theory: Go for it. I don't need "proven abuse." Default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, and no RVI (which is silly).

Kritiks: I enjoy K v Policy debates. However, you should have specific links to the aff and don’t assume I know your lit. 2NR overviews are fine but you also need to do line by line or I find collapsed 2AR perms/link turns/weighing persuasive. I think the aff should explain the world of the perm in the 2AR. I am a fan of alt solves case and serial policy failure arguments. I need significantly more explanation for abstract post-modern kritiks. Tell me what your alternative does.

I am familiar with: Identity/Reps Ks (Islamophobia/Orientalism, Set Col, Fem, Anti-blackness/Afropess, Queer Theory etc), Biopolitics, Cap, Militarism

I am a little bit/vaguely familiar with: Puar, Deleuze, Weheliye

I generally dislike/don’t care to learn about: Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Bataille.

I am fairly convinced by speaking for others arguments.

Kritikal Affs vs Framework: I like these debates. Typically, a counterinterp with answers on standards is more convincing to me than impact turns, but I can also be persuaded by a good collapse on framework. I think critical education is a much more convincing 2NR voter than appeals to procedural fairness. I also find most TVAs are overrated, almost never solve the aff, and are entirely defensive. The farther the aff is from the topic, the more convinced I am by T.

Other LD stuff: I don't care if you sit or stand. I’d prefer you do line-by-line analysis in later speeches than give me random voters.

Please ask me if you have any questions. Good luck, have fun!

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.

Pronouns: she/they

Add me to the email chain- brtdebate@gmail.com

(speech drop is fine too)

^ I expect docs to be shared in the round in some way, shape, or form. (That is especially true for online debate). Flashing cases is the bare minimum. IMO if you're refusing to flash cases, that's sketch af and I'm probs gonna think you miscut your evidence if you refuse to show it to me.

*the exception is performance/narrative stuff, y'all do your thing

—TLDR—

tech>>>truth

I’m a first year out from the NE LD circuit and now do NFA-LD (some NDT-CEDA). I'm open to evaluating nearly anything that is presented to me. I'm familiar with policy args, theory/T, k's/k affs, performance stuff, etc.

***Don't think I will refuse to evaluate/tank speaks if I watch trad debate. I'm here to judge what's presented to me and judges who refuse to listen to certain types of args (unless they're offensive and harmful to ppl) is ridiculous.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask whenever!

——EXPERIENCE——

LD at Lincoln Southwest HS (2019-2023)

Here's my wiki from my senior year of HS:

https://opencaselist.com/hsld22/LincolnSouthwest/BrTe

NFA-LD (and some NDT-CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2023-Present)

Here’s my current NFA wiki:

https://opencaselist.com/nfald23/Nebraska-Lincoln/BrTe

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest HS (2023-Present)

Folks who shaped my views of debate: Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Cami Smith, Nick Wallenburg, Colten White,

—PREF SHEET—

K - 1

Performance - 1

LARP/Policy/DAs/CPs- 1

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - strike

—SPEAKS—

(from Zach Thornhill's paradigm)

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correctly in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have little to no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

—— LD ——

Speed:

I'm solid with speed. Slow down a bit on tags, T shells, & analytics and we’re chilling.

Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be accommodating to your peers pls.

Theory/Topicality:

Totally good with it. Here are some things to note for me:

Theory should have an interp, standards, and voters that have been extended throughout the debate. I'm not gonna vote for your limits standard if you don't extend the interp (or even worse don't even have one). T/theory is never a reverse voter (i.e. RVIs aren't real). Needing proven abuse is silly. Affs that say don't vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterterms that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad, then warrant that out in the standards debate. Disclosure is generally good IMO, but you gotta win the theory debate here. I'll vote for theory out of the 1ar.

DA’s/CP’s/PIC’s:

Good with em.

Please have an explicit counterplan text. I've seen "counterplans" that think they can fly without one, but if I don't know explicitly what the CP does, I can't vote for it. Same goes with a net benefit, idk how some of y'all think a cp without one is at all competitve.

I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove the cp to be competitive (as long as there’s a perm on the CP).

If the CP is dispo, you better be able to explain what that means to your opp because no one has a common definition of what it is.

Kritikal stuff:

Good with em, ran em a lot.

Lit I've run and I'm familiar with: Fem/FKJ (Ahmed), Biop/Necro (Foucault, Mbembe, etc), Cap, Set Col

Bottom line: you should know your lit and be able to explain it to me and your opponent.

***note for performance stuff:

Performance stuff is cool. I’ve seen/ran poetics, music, story-telling, dance, and narrative-based performance & am def willing to vote on it.

Phil:

I never really ran it and don’t love phil debate, but I’ll obvi evaluate it. I have surface-level understandings of some phil (absurdism, existentialism, Kantian ethics, etc), but don’t expect me to know your phil for you. Make sure you can explain it to me & your opponent.

—— POLICY ——

Most of the prog LD stuff should apply here. I haven't judged much hs policy so my topic knowledge/ knowledge of hs norms is somewhat limited.

If you have any other questions that aren’t answered, feel free to ask before the round!

—— PF ——

If for some reason the tourney put me in PF, know that I have limited experience with this event and know a little about the norms. I’ll do my best to adapt, but I have some non-negotiable preferences.

Make sure you have warrants for your arguments, just making baseless assertions is not enough for me.

I’m not a fan of paraphrasing, cite your evidence in correctly cut cards that are preferably shared with everyone.

I’ll evaluate theory in the same way I would in LD/Policy so refer to that :) I'm also probs a good judge for feedback on that front.

——————

All in all, good luck and have fun! Always feel free to come up and ask me any questions before or after the round :)

Please do not read arguments that can be interpreted as glorifying suicide. This is a specific vein of death good that I do not want to hear. If you have questions, please ask before round.

I EXPECT YOU TO USE SOME WAY TO FILE SHARE FOR ALL DEBATES!!! THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS.

Disclosure updates in things i vote on section

I prefer for us to use speechdrop.net for file sharing but if we have to use one, add me to the email chain: dieseldebate@gmail.com

"debate is bigger than any one person. I believe in debate. I believe in the debate community. I believe that debate is one of the most valuable educational programs in the country and I am proud that it is my home."- Scott Harris

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college??? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. We have scholarships for dedicated debaters who want to invest in our program and would love to welcome you to our team!

_______________________

Experience:

Competing

2012-2016: Policy Debate at Lee's Summit West High School, 2x national qualifier [Transportation infrastructure, Cuba Mexico Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance]

2016-2020: NFA-LD at University of Nebraska-Lincoln [SOUTHCOMM, Policing, Cybersecurity, Energy]

2020 NFA-LD debater of distinction

Coaching

2018-2019: Justice Debate league Volunteer

2020: Lincoln Douglas Lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Institute

2020-2022: Assistant NFA-LD Coach for Illinois State University

2019-2023: Head LD coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

2022: Lab leader for the Collegiate Midwest Lincoln Douglas Cooperative

2022: Varsity LD and progressive argumentation lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Conference

2022-present: Assistant Director of Debate for the University of Nebraska- Lincoln (NFA-LD, some NDT-CEDA)

individuals who shaped my perspectives on debate: Justin Kirk, Adam Blood, Nadya Steck, Dustin Greenwalt

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Disclosure theory - if you read disclosure on either side and do not have open sources available for both sides on your wiki, I will massively doc your speaks. This argument exists to create better standards for debate. Failure to do so will result in dreadful speaks and a very easy out for your opponent to just say that you did not meet the burdens expressed in your argument.

theory out of 1AC

Speed theory (if justified, see speed section)

Framework v. K affs

Framework turns v. other positions (Ks, DAs, Case args)

CPs in HS LD

CP theory

Ks in HS LD (See K section in policy for specifics)

Speaking for others arguments (There are ways to not make this problematic. However, identity is very individualized and commodification of someone else's identity for your own gain is a problem for me. For instance, do not be a white male debater reading the narrative of a black woman.)

______________

NFA-LD/ Policy

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be respectful of individuals and their experiences.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: needing proven abuse is wrong. Affs that say dont vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterinterps that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad then warrant that out in the standards debate. I do say if you want to win T you need to go all in in the NR and win the full shell. When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. That being said I don't see theory as a means of winning the ballot. It is just a means of getting me to not evaluate an argument. This can be changed though. I have done a lot of weighing condo bad v. T. Theory v. theory is always a fun time. Warrant out why some shells are weighed first in the round and explain to me how different shells interact with each other. T is never a reverse voter though and neither is theory. Predictability is not determined by whether or not something is on the wiki or if you have seen it before. Predictability is based on whether or not an interpretation is predictable given the resolution. The same goes for reasonability. Negs who read T should be able to provide a TVA or establish that the education we get from judging the 1AC is bad for the topic.

DISADS: Run them. This is one of my favorite arguments to see and evaluate. I think it is the best way to establish comparative offense. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really ran them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.) I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove them to be competitive as long as there’s a perm on the CP.

KRITIKS: I like the k debate and will vote for them but explain the literature. I have read some of the authors including Deleuze and Guattari, Puar, D’andrea, Ahmed, Wilderson, Tuck and Yang, and most of the authors that relate to neoliberal subjectivity as it applies to consumption. I have also seen antiblackness and afropessimism rounds that I have enjoyed a lot. But that does not mean I am entirely up to date on the newest literature or how your lit plays into the round. Just explain it to me. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. Affs should either have a plan text or an advocacy statement as to what they do. I don't like performance debate as much as just reading the cards, however I have voted for poetry performance in rounds. I will listen to identity args. Race, disabilty, and queer lit are all acceptable in front of me and I can/ will evaluate them. Neg should be able to defend alt solvency. I am not going to automatically grant that. I will not kick the alt for you. saying "if you do not buy the alt kick it for me" is not an argument. If you do not explicitly say "kick the alt" or something of that nature I will evaluate the alternative. If it does not solve then I will be persuaded by risk of aff offense. I also want to point out that P.I.L. was correct, Anger is an Energy. If structures upset you, feel free to rage against them. This can include the debate, economic, racial, gendered, and other spaces. If you are oppressed and you are angry about it, I will not limit your ability to angrily refute the system.

K's that I am v familiar with: SetCol, Cap, Afropess, fem, ableism, militarism, Biopower/ Necropower, Islamophobia

k's that I know a bit less: queer theory, Baudrillard

CASE: I am always here for the growth, heg, and democracy bad debates as well as the prolif good ones. My strategy typically was to go T, K, O so I enjoy hearing why heg is bad and how the alt avoids it and how the aff isnt topical.

PRESUMPTION: I will not vote for terminal defense on the flow. I need an offensive reason to vote for you. Whether that be a disad, K, or advantage I need something to evaluate to give me a reason to reject the other team. Find it, win it, and extend it. Also, do the calculus for me of what impacts matter and why they matter. When I do the calculus I look to magnitude, timeframe, and probability. Explain why you fit into those please.

CONDO: I find it disingenuous to read more than one condo advocacy in one round in NFA. You can do it if you win the theory debate but I will be more lenient to theory in a world of multiple conditional advocacies. If you are running multiple advocacies please make it only be CPs. I don't want to see a CP and K in a round because almost always the CP will link to the K and I think that's cheating. That is different for policy and I consider it much more debatable then.

PLANLESS AFFS: I believe the aff should do something. How that happens is up to the aff. I do not reject planless affs on face but they should at least have an advocacy. otherwise, I am persuaded by vote neg on presumption because the aff functionally does nothing. arguments about the importance of rhetorical challenges is a way to do this.

_________

HS-LD

For any arguments that relate to it see above. In terms of how I evaluate LD rounds I rely heavily on the framework debate to determine how I will evaluate the round. Pay it it's due and try to win it. However, if you are able to show how your arguments fall into your opponents’ framework then I will be willing to vote for you if they win the framework shell. Also please clash with each other. I have seen too many rounds where each speech is just explaining 1ACs and 1NCs and I don't have a specific reason to vote against one or the other. At that point my personal morals let me decide how I feel about the topic. You don't want that. I don't want that.

I think a lot of LD debaters fail to recognize the importance of uniqueness to their arguments. If the squo is in the direction of the arg you are talking about, you need to prove uniqueness for whatever point you are making.

I tend to default to the idea that Fiat does not exist in HSLD until I am told otherwise. This is an easy arg to make especially with a res that uses the word "ought".

I am more progressive when it comes to LD due to my policy background. This means PICs, Ks, CPs and DAs are all acceptable. weigh them and explain the args as they apply to the aff case.

Phil cases and I do not get along very well. It confuses me and I find that debaters are not the best at explaining philosophy in the limited amount of time we have in debate rounds.

I prefer single standard debate as well. Death is bad and morality is good (but subjective) I dont need a specific mechanism for how we prevent or entrench one or the other. if you read it thats fine but I probably won't look at it that much unless you thoroughly explain it to me.

how to pref me

policy style args (CP, K, DA)-1

Theory-1

phil-3

tricks-these are typically not arguments and hold minimal weight for me

______________________________

PF

If you have me in the back of the room for NSDA most likely it will be for public forum. That being said, I am not extremely experienced when it comes to public forum debate. I have coached and debated it in an extremely limited capacity but have substantial experience in other formats. The debate is yours but I have a few things that ought to be known before you walk into the room and start doing your thing.

1. Debate is a game of comparative warrants and impacts. Too many people in PF try to rely on just making claims without substantiating those claims with proper warrants. Just giving me a number is insufficient to prove the causality of an argument. I need to understand what the reasoning is behind WHY a number exists.
2. Uniqueness MATTERS! I have seen too many debaters (in all activities) fail to explain the uniqueness of their claims and arguments. The resolution provides an overarching truth claim that provides some direction as to how the world reorients itself post implementation. What does each world look like and how is it a shift to the status quo?
3. Evidence is incredibly important to me. If you choose to paraphrase, it will negatively impact your speaker points. I emphasize the use of actual properly cut cards in PF. I understand this is not a common practice so if I ask for evidence that you have read, you need to be able to provide the source and the lines where your arguments came from. Failure to do this will result in me not evaluating an argument, filing an ethics complaint, and tanking your speaks. Don't plagiarize or lie to me in a debate.
4. Speaker position does not influence me too much. I keep a rigorous flow that consists of all of the arguments made by both teams. You should pref the side you want before picking the order in front of me.
5. PLEASE provide an actual impact in debates. most PF rounds I have judged do not express an actual impact story and get stuck at internal links. you need a reason that your contentions are a problem
6. Finally, for any of it that applies above, please consult my LD and policy sections of my paradigm to see if any arguments should or should not be read at this tournament. Also, ask any questions that you may have before the round. I enjoy talking to people and hope to enjoy the debate you present me with.

__________________

At the end of the day it is my job to sit in the back of the room and listen to discourse on the issues presented. It is your job to determine how that discourse happens. Just because I say I do or do not like something should not change your strategy based on the round. I have voted for things I never thought I would and have changed my opinions about things a lot. I give higher speaks to anyone who can read my paradigm and change my opinion or do something that is incredibly intelligent in round. Do what you are comfortable with and I will adjudicate it based on what is in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me. I only bite on tuesdays. Pref me a 1 and I'll be able to give you an experienced and fairly well rounded and open round.

UNL NFA-LD

I debated for Lincoln Southeast for 4 years in Public Forum, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. I'm a special education major. I also am an assistant coach for Lincoln Southeast.

My email is jwolfedebate@gmail.com for any questions, feedback, or email chains.

First and foremost, do not say anything that would exclude another debater. Debate is an educational space, and should be accessible to all.

1) Tech Over Truth

2) Speed is Fine, Just be Clear. If it's something that isn't put on SpeechDrop or the email, slow down or I won't get it.

3) Please read a trigger warning if applicable

4) NO NEW IN THE TWO

5) I will give low-speak wins

Public Forum

Be clear about your impacts, and weigh your impacts against your opponents'. Tell me why theirs' either aren't true or are outweighed by yours.

2nd Rebuttal should respond to 1st Rebuttal

I will not pay attention to cross. If there is something important in cross bring it up in a speech.

Grand cross is my favorite speech.

Policy

AFF: Be clear about your plan text. Extend the AFF in every speech. Compare the AFF to CPs or Ks and outweigh the AFF against DAs.

K AFFs: Go right ahead. Be clear on what you're advocacy is, and explain the solvency mechanism. Provide a framing mechanism for the round that allows me to weigh your impacts.

CPs and DAs: My favorite NEG arguments. A good CP and DA combo is the easiest NEG argument to vote on. Show me why the CP avoids the DA, and provide a clear link for the DA.

Ks: I ran my fair share of Ks in policy. Just as with K AFFs, be clear what you're advocating for. If you run a K, a good chunk of the 1NC should be spent on explaining links. Be clear in link extensions throughout the round, and spend the majority of the NEG block on the K if you choose to go for it (i.e., spend the whole 2NC on the K). The K's I'm familiar with are Cap, Ableism and Sett Col. No matter what though, I'm probably not familiar with your K lit, so explain the alt well.

T: Go for it, it can win you a round, but if you do it poorly, it can just as easily lose you the round. If the AFF can convince me that an RVI, I will give them one.

I weigh T>K>CP and Case=DA

Lincoln Douglas

Go for whatever you want. I will evaluate and vote on everything. Look at Policy to see how I evaluate certain arguments.

Provide a clear framework. Single standard framing is fine, just explain why your impacts are most important.

You should always find a way to weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework, even if you think you are very far ahead on the framework flow.

I will vote for disclosure theory- just do it, there's no reason not to.

Do not run tricks or I will drop you after the 1AC (because that's when you think my mind should be made up)

No moral skep- it will drive me up the wall

Collapse the criterion if you run the same one- do not make me listen to util vs util.

Speaking of util, if you give me the most out-of-pocket extinction link chain I'll give you 30 speaks. I can't guarantee you'll win, but I'll give you speaks

I love phil frameworks, I will vote for them, just explain how impacts work under it.

DO NOT READ A PLAN TEXT IN LD

If you read a plan text, I will allow generic links to apply. I hate plan texts in LD, there is no reason not to defend the whole topic. If you want to debate a plan text, go do policy. You defending one part of the resolution is not defending the resolution. My bar will be set very low for T shells and K links against you if you read a plan text.