Tabroom.com

2024 Lincoln Southeast Winter Joust

2024 — Lincoln, NE/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Pearlie Best Bryan Senior High School None

Miranda Cannon Lincoln Southeast High School

Kobe Cooper Millard South High School None

Abhi Karri Millard North High School

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 7:24 AM EDT

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Background: I went to Millard North from 2019-2023 and am currently a biochemistry and finance double major at UNL. I'm also premed so if you have any questions about that feel free to ask.

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- abhi1karri@gmail.com

Experience:

Background: I did PF for 4 years at Millard North High School, from 2019-2023. Throughout my career, I got a total of 6 bids and qualified for nats 3 times.

Coaching: I'm currently a private coach, email me if you're interested.

General:

I like seeing the different strategies applied by different teams. That's why I'm open to almost anything and all the preferences I talk about are things that can be overcome with good debating. With that being said here are my thoughts and preferences:

Tech > Truth. Please go for conceded arguments because they are considered true on my flow so it makes both our lives easier by going for it. I will say tho conceding an arg is not the end of the world because I'll still be open to weighing/cross applications against it.

I can only vote on an argument if I understand what I'm voting on so explain what you are going for in a way that I can understand. That doesn't mean to give me a 30-second extension it just means to be understandable when you explain ur arguments, especially the important ones in the round.

Being blatantly rude/cheating/bad evidence ethics in round is an easy way to get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how "good at debate" you may be, there's no excuse for this. With that being said I average a 28 on the nat circuit and 28.5 on local but I do believe speaks are very subjective so I'm very easily influenced by any sort of "give us all 30s" arguments.

I'm fine with speed up to 250 wpm but anything over that and I'd need a speech doc.

Preferences:

I'd like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Your weighing should also be comparative, not just restating your impacts and saying you outweigh but linking it to some sort of mechanism and giving a comparison between different impacts. I also think prereqs and link-ins are underutilized in PFso remember to use those.

Probability is one of the least important weighing mechanisms to me. 99% of the time if you win your link and internal link you win near 100% prob so this won't be too persuasive of a weighing mechanism in front of me.

Please organize your speech and signpost throughout your speech. There's nothing more frustrating than flowing a speech where everything is jumping around.

Speech-by-speech notes:

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus: I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should roughly mirror the summary speech.

Cross: What you say in cross is binding, but I don't flow or listen too hard to it. If something happens bring it up in the next speech for it to be evaluated in the round.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence. You should also have all your ev ready to send over or just send a speechdoc beforehand so I don't care if you prep while your opponent is looking for their evidence to send.

Progressive Args:

I debated a couple of tournaments of NFA LD and have judged a lot of progressive rounds by now so I understand most progressive args. The only thing I'd be hesitant about running in front of me is kaffs because I lowk don't know much about them. Here are my thoughts on specific progressive args/ks:

Theory: Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. I know what's considered frivolous is subjective so if your shell falls in the grey zone I'll be open to arguments for why/why not something is friv. That does not mean to run smth stupid like shoe theory in front of me and expect me to buy an argument for why it's not frivolous.

CIs are not always necessary, if you don't have one I'll just assume you are defending the violation. You can still gain offense through a myriad of ways. DTA or DTD doesn't have to be explicitly said as long as there is a voter and a sufficient warrant behind it. Almost everything else (yes/no RVIs, Reasonability over CIs, etc.) can be argued in the theory debate and I try my best to take a neutral stance on them. The most important thing to understand is that regardless of whether you know all the jargon behind theory debate if you are making proper, well-warranted arguments with an impact that will most of the time be sufficient.

I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. It will be very hard to convince me that paraphrasing is good but a good disclosure debate can go either way. This isn't to say that you can't win in front of me by paraphrasing it's just saying I have a high threshold for believing that it is good.

I'll evaluate IVIs if they are well warranted and impacted out. The most important IVI that all teams should look for is when teams violate their own shell. Running something like disclo without disclosing is one of the easiest ways to get dropped so make sure to point something like that out if it happens in the round.

T: I'm fine with T in PF. I think there are def instances where people stretch the resolution way too much so I wouldn't complain if T is introduced in the round. Keep in mind that interps should have definitions within them or it will be an uphill battle.

Ks: I've debated ks before so I know more than the average judge about it but I would still be cautious running one in front of me. Be very explanatory throughout the round and explain to me exactly what my ballot does. The ks I have the most experience with are cap and security so I feel like I'd be able to evaluate those to a certain extent but I have like no experience with non-topical ks so be even more careful about running those with me. I also expect you to have a fairly strong alt if you are trying to solve a massive problem.

As for responses to ks, I'm familiar with most. I think perms, T, and Fwk are all good ways to respond to ks so make sure to utilize those and I will understand what you are saying.

Tricks: I'll pray for you...

Post-Round:

I'll always disclose unless the tournament explicitly says otherwise.

Please ask questions about my decision/ask for advice. I'll always be open to explaining any part of my decision and explaining my thoughts on certain arguments. Asking questions is also the best way to improve so never be afraid to do it.

Disagreeing with my decision/being upset about losing is fine, just don't attack me for it.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school and did okay I'd probably dislike judging it because from what I've seen no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill.

Sania Khan Millard West High School None

Angela Kwambamba Lincoln Southwest High School

Adi Mehlin Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 9:50 AM CDT

General notes:

- 3 years of debate experience in PF, Congress, and LD, congress national semifinalist. 3 years of judging and a bit of coaching as well.

- She/her pronouns, you can also just call me judge or Adi

- Don't be sexist, racist, etc. It will kill your speaker points and arguments.

- Generally, be nice and polite! Please normalize content warnings for touchy subjects.

- NO SPREADING. I will stop flowing and cross my arms. I will also yell clear and be really annoying about it. I hate it. Keep speed no more than about 7/10.

- I don't flow cross for arguments, but it can help/hurt your speaker points.

- I will not weigh arguments or impacts without sufficient, credible, real (!), sources. Analytics aren't my thing.

- Have fun!

PF:

- I know I'm the minority in this, but I actually don't feel strongly about disclosure. I'll probably vote on the small school response if it comes down to it, but every round is different.

- I will listen to any type of argument (theory, whatever) and impacts (yes, even extinction). Not a huge fan of these nontrad or extreme arguments, but it's not an auto drop.

- If you like to call for cards, SET UP A SPEECH DROP/EMAIL CHAIN AHEAD OF TIME. I'm not gonna sit there while both sides waste time calling for 40 cards just to look at them for 5 seconds and never mention it again. I will start dropping speaks.

- I’m like 70% truth and 30% tech. If you want to convince of something weird, its possible, but I'll default to truth if you don't meet a high standard.

- 2nd summary and final focus are not places for new arguments. There should be lots of weighing and analysis.

LD:

- Mostly the same stuff as PF so see above!

- I don't know must of the LD specific lingo, but I'll listen to whatever! Just be sure to explain it. Pretty open minded here, just don't be abusive. I want the debate to be fun, accessible, and interesting. You can always ask me questions before round.

- I don't have a tolerance for speed. 7/10 max. 5-6/10 comfortably. I don't care if you send me the doc or not - don't do it. I will vote on speed theory. I'll probably auto-drop if I can't flow it. Just don't do it please!

Britney Meints Lincoln East High School

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School

Isaiah Petty Lincoln Southeast High School None

Jack Spady Millard West High School

Dylan Sutton Millard North High School

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 10:48 AM CDT

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.
DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative
CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.
Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.
I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.
Case lists. What is topical under your definition?
No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.
More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.
That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.
Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

Garret Swanson Hire

Victor Thoms Lincoln North Star

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 5:32 AM CDT

pronouns: any | email: victorthoms037@gmail.com

TL;DR

Read what you enjoy reading - if that's something like tricks or other silly things I'm good with that
Tech > Truth ~~|||~~ Pref sheet below
Tag-Team CX/Flex-Prep is alright
If you have a trigger warning, offer an alternative option
Good with speed
Judge intervention is stinky, I try my hardest not to do it
Online debate: I am fairly laid back for online debates, so if you know that wifi or clarity might be an issue please send a doc of your constructive.
Pref Sheet: 1 (fav) - 5 (meh)

Theory - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2

Phil - 3

Trad - 3

Tricks - 4

Background/// I debated policy for 3 years at Millard North with some experience at the nat circuit level. I qualified for nationals twice and had some success in the Nebraska circuit. In my experience, I interacted with a wide variety of arguments, if you have questions please feel free to ask.

Coached policy for 2 years at Omaha Central (21-23)

Currently coaching LD at Lincoln North Star (23-24).

The not TL;DR part

PF/// Full disclosure, I am not fully acquainted with the norms of PF, but as long as teams clearly weigh in their round I should be able to make a cohesive ballot that is hopefully acceptable.

Policy/// Literally read whatever you want as long as I am able to understand it. Very tech over truth so I really just want to see debaters reading what they enjoy so they can compete at their best. Otherwise, the LD section will give more context to how I feel on certain arguments that are found in both.

LD///My LD experience comes from judging and coaching, not from competing. Keep that in mind.

Trad - Trad debates and other things like it are debates I'd like to see go further than they typically do. It could just be me being a bozo, but I'd like to see justifications for why specific frameworks are important for the round and the impacts you claim to solve for. But honestly I'll still vote you up if you don't do that so feel free to ignore my whining.

Phil - I can't say I am the most familiar with phil, but frameworks in these rounds tend to keep me more captivated and this might ensure that I will buy your persuasion and voters more.

Larp/Plan texts - I tend to be pretty picky on plan texts, but most teams get away with reading fairly mid plan texts so it doesn't really matter to me. Rounds I do better in have clearly conveyed solvency mechanisms and framing that justifies why their impacts matter in the first place.

DA - No preferences here, just make sure it links and weigh.

CP - Counterplans can vary a lot so I will just talk about them generally. I prefer for debaters to clearly state their net benefit and why it's mutually exclusive. Obviously, CPs tend to be very strategic so if you bend these rules I'll be fine with that, just guide me how to evaluate it in round.

K - I read a variety of Ks while debating, and have seen even more diverse arguments when I started coaching. Read whatever K you like, I would just want to make sure that the K has a clear story and solvency mechanism. If it is predicated on pre-fiat arguments, be sure to give examples of the alternative working in the past. Or if it has never been tried, why its a good idea to risk it all on the alt.

ROTB - Spend more time on your role of the ballot than you think you need to. I need to know why I should be voting the way I am, not just a baseless request. I prefer role of the ballots that do more than just imply that I should hack for the side that reads it. This doesn't mean I won't use it, but it will be a far easier debate for you if it is justified by whatever you are reading.

Theory/ T - Theory is something I read in pretty much all of my rounds in policy. I will always evaluate theory first in rounds. While I am very familiar with theory and topicality, I want debaters to actually give examples of abuse to justify why they are reading it. These can be the most flimsy justifications in the world, but I want to see them there because if not I will buy reasonability or we-meets very easily. I say all that but I do recommend y'all to read theory in front of me since it makes winning my ballots easier. (read it well though!)

Tricks - I am not the most familiar with tricks, but I evaluate it before most other arguments in the round. If the argument is flimsy and mostly there to be a goofy time skew, I will buy your opponent's offense quite easily. Don't stop that from you reading them since the time skew strategy is an effective one, just kick them and justify why offense doesn't carry through.

Cristina Villa Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 2:07 AM CDT

I use she/her/hers pronouns.

Debate Background: I did four years of PF debate at Lincoln North Star from 2016-2020 in the NE circuit, I also did a brief stint of LD and some Congress. I now assistant coach PF at Lincoln Southeast High School. This is my first year consistently judging.

Disclaimer: I won't tolerate any exclusionary or hateful rhetoric. Debate is a fun and educational experience, and should be a safe and accessible space for all students.

Debate Substance/Content: Whatever arguments you read, clearly show me how your impacts outweigh compared to your opponents. If all your args are warranted, have clear links, and are extended, that's how you'll win my ballot. I'll only weigh the topic substance that is in your case and rebuttal, so don't waste your time by bringing up a new argument halfway through the round. I don't flow extremely specific numbers/card names, just what it all means, so don't waste too much time doing this either. The better use of your time is focusing on the impact, rather than the actual numbers themselves.

***Substance Exceptions: I don't care much for disclosure/debate theory. I don't really think it has a place in PF so I wouldn't suggest running these arguments with me because I'm not going to weigh it. I won't consider disclosure theory unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm not all too familiar with progressive arguments so I wouldn't entirely suggest this either. If you run a progressive/LD-type argument, make them extremely clear.

Debate Etiquette: I can handle any speed, just make sure you enunciate. If you choose to spread though, keep in mind I can only write so fast. Clearly state your impact at the very end of your response so it's the last thing I hear/it secures its spot on my flow. I like simple off-time roadmaps, such as "aff, neg, impacts" etc. This is generally how I think the debate should go.

-Case

-Rebuttal: All your responses/blocks and rebuilding your case if time. Basically, new stuff then old stuff.

-Summary: Extending all your new and old args/impacts of the round and why you outweigh.

-Final Focus: REALLY telling me why you outweigh, with the same args/impacts from summary.

***I don't care for any rudeness, sarcasm, or dominating time during cross. I think it's really distasteful and I'll dock you speaking points. Please have your stuff organized, I get a bit annoyed when anyone takes longer than usual to find a card to exchange during prep.

RFDs: I typically only include a brief RFD when I submit my ballot, but I try my best to give extensive feedback by the end of the tournament. I'm always open to questions at the end of the round if you'd like more explanation on anything.

Good luck and have fun!

Connor Whalen Hire

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 3:34 AM CDT

please add me to the email chain - cwhaldebate@gmail.com
he/him
Order is policy, then PF

Do not trivialize, commodify, or deny the Holocaust.

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. If you are being recruited by or are committed to UNL, please conflict me!

I graduated from Patriot High School (VA) in 2022, having done WACFL PF for a year. Currently, I'm competing in NFA-LD (election reform, nukes) at the University of Nebraska. I usually judge as a hired gun of sorts for Ivy Bridge, as well as various schools on the Nebraska circuit.

Outside of debate I'm pursuing a Bachelors' of Science in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Agronomy. I'm also a tutor, a research assistant, and an intern with the state extension agency. I mainly research risk management (price volatility) and anti-trust policy (amongst other things).

Evidence sharing should not be complicated. I'm generally pro-disclosure. I don't care if you sit or stand during your speeches. I'm fine with observers so long as both debaters are.

My flow is generally pretty tight. I tend to prefer the line-by-line, and debaters who are able to stick to it tend to do better in front of me. Obviously like (almost) everything in this paradigm this is a default, so try to change it however you like. I am not persuaded by team clout, verbal abuse, or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside of debate and I have my dogs.

That said - if you have questions (about the round, my judging preferences, college apps, econ help...) - feel free to reach out!

I think about debate pretty similarly to (in no particular order) Ayyah Al-Jibouri, Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Adrienne Phillips, and Sarah Stevenson-Peck

Case debate - The best. I will almost never not vote for a solid 2NR case collapse, if you pull this off in front of me you will almost certainly get 30 speaker points no questions asked. I'm not entirely sure what a "risk of offense" even is and will readily pull the trigger on presumption if it's won.

DA/CP combo - Yes and yes. Run your cheater counterplans in front of me - almost anything goes so long as it's in the topic lit and you can do any additional justification. PICs are (almost) always good, consult/QPQ is fine on IR topics, and delay/miscellaneous conditions is illegitimate.

T v. Policy - Was my bread and butter during the elections topic. Using T to set up other off-case positions (either you're non-topical or you link to this DA, etc) is always a good time. I default to competing interps and don't need proven abuse.

Theory - I default to reject the arg, not the team in most instances. Most neg theory save for T/FW, test case (chef's kiss) and vagueness (my beloved), are probably frivolous. The only reject the team argument in terms of aff theory (save for condo) is probably object fiat. If you argument is best described as originating from circuit LD (cough cough three tier method cough cough), then I'm not the judge for you.

T-USFG - In a bloodbath, I wouldn't consider myself a hack - that said, I'm pretty receptive to the TVA. Do with that what you will.

K - If you know what you're doing, go for it.

Up my alley: Cap, Orientalism/Terror Talk, Militarism, Miscellaneous Ks of Economics (if you run Cybernetics and do it well I won't be able to shut up about it)
It's a wash: SetCol, Biopower, some Psychoanalysis (the nukes topic is wild)
Not my forté but I can follow: AB/Afropess, Fem IR, Queer Theory, most other arguments not listed (if you have specific questions ask)
Please don't: Heidigger, Agamben, Nietzche

PF specifics

For WACFL tournaments (this is important!!), the best case scenario is that I get approximately 5 minutes to make my decision before the tabroom starts busting down my door. Please be time efficient.
Only way to get a 30 is to share speechdocs with unparaphrased evidence (policy-style cards).
The line-by-line and keeping a tight (and clean) flow are your friend.
Tag team crossfire is welcome. I don't flow crossfire but I do pay attention during it; if in doubt, anything you say is binding.
I don't tend to jive with PF jargon (quantify, scope, de-link, terminal offense, etc).
First rebuttal should not extend their own case. Doing so guts any advantage you get from speaking first. On the flip side, second rebuttal is expected to attack and defend.
Please don't steal prep.

Login to Tabroom

2024 Lincoln Southeast Winter Joust

2024 — Lincoln, NE/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges