Tabroom.com

The Paradigm at Dowling Catholic

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Miranda Cannon Lincoln Southeast High School

Eshaan Chandani Johnston

Maddie Cook Lakeville North High School

Last changed on Mon July 8, 2024 at 9:38 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to flip and start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because 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 or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
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. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Kobe Cooper Lincoln Southeast High School None

Mizzan Dollisso Ames None

Naura Godar Theodore Roosevelt High School

Sophia Gustafson Iowa City West

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 7:22 AM MDT

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com . Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org . Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
Frontlining
Defense/Turn extensions
Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Steve Haile SF Lincoln

Danielle Harms Watertown High School None

Zach Harnden Hire

Shannon Hedges Theodore Roosevelt High School

Mesa Jacobson SF Lincoln

Olivia Johnson Sioux Falls Jefferson HS

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 4:20 AM CDT

Email: livvyjo11103@gmail.com (put me on the email chain, and feel free to message me post round)

About me: Olivia She/her (20) I am currently an individual events coach at Sioux Falls Jefferson! I attend USD online and work in marketing.

TLDR:

Debate is hard, please have fun and after the round, shake it off and never let a down bother you!!

PLAY NICE. There is nothing worse than a round where I as a judge feel flustered because of how the debaters are treating their opponents. I will comment on this, and I will give you lower speaks because of this.

I do not do time signals, do not ask. (Debate)

I prefer if you have time on your own (I tend to forget), but once my timer goes off, your time is done, please do not argue with me about how much prep you have.

During your opponent's speech, please refrain from talking, and listen to what they have to say, even if it is the last speech. They are valid and deserve to be heard as much as you do

My debate career:

I graduated from Central High school in 2022 and was a member of the debate team for all four years of high school. I did policy, pf, oratory, and info - went to nationals 3 times.

PREFERENCES:

I tend to lean more tech over truth - and I am very open to experimental debate, within reason. Just ask before the round or let me know if you wanna do something crazy. That being said, i will vote truth over tech, if there is literally no warrant or link to the debate/evidence.

QUALS AND STATE: (This is for debate only)

Lay it out for me. If I do not understand your argument I will not vote for it. Ks and Theory, are okay - just make sure they connect back. If you want to try something new, please go for it.

As always, be nice and play by the rules.

- EVIDENCE SHARING: This shouldn't take long, as we have some long days ahead - or it's the end of a super long day for all of us. It's cool if you just set up an email chain or something to make the process go faster. (but of course, add me in)

- EVIDENCE VIOLATIONS: I am ALL for the educational level of debate. If something is not true, please say something as I will not catch it like you do - because I am less experienced in the topic, and do not have the card in front of me. I will look at all cards brought to me, but I will not ask if you do not say anything.

Public Forum:

I am okay with speed, I understand the lingo. Keep things on the flow, if you drop something and do not address it, I no longer consider it an argument. I am good at following the flow. - That being said, please stay organized, it's easier for everyone to understand when you follow the order of contentions and arguments that are set up during the first few speeches.

Keep a good roadmap throughout the whole round and TELL me what I should vote for. Believe in what you are saying and why you win. Carry your arguments all the way through, if you drop something, tell me why, do not ignore it. With this - if you drop something you are not allowed to pick it back up. Consider it on the floor and I can't see it - do not bring it up in the final speech.

Please refrain from using abstract arguments such as Ks, Critiques, and CPs in South Dakota main season, UNLESS you are able to prove exactly how this relates to the resolution and your contentions. Experimental debate is only fun if it makes sense and works within the round. I debated policy for the majority of my debate career (being in the final policy round EVER in SD) so if you use them, I will know what you are talking about - your opponent may not so explain exactly what you mean. (CPs are very controversial in PF, I would strongly avoid these if you don't wanna talk about it for the duration of every speech and get debated on topicality and resolutional analysis)

LD:

I have only judged LD, last year being my introduction. With this, I am someone who, like PF will judge based on your clash. Believe in what you are debating, even if it is not your own personal belief outside of the round. If you do not care about what you are saying I will pick up on it, and stop listening.

I tend to lean towards a criterion and value debate as my main voter (any framework actually), as it’s there for a reason. You drop your criterion, you lose. You don’t uphold your value, you lose.

CIRCUIT:

Do not be abusive to your opponent. No disclosure theory if I am in the back, please. You can run theory, you just have to explain why it pertains to the text, and are able to back it up.

Speechdrop and email chains, make it quick. I am not spending 20 minutes trying to set it up when you did not come prepared. Have a print-off of your case as backup.

Ks, CPs, and DAs: Make sure you are explaining these in order of event - like if you have 2 DAs that are triggered by something, or solved by the CP, make sure they make sense to me. Explain if your opponent does not know what you're talking about, as not everyone normally debates circuits, on the traditional level these do not exist. Be courteous.

Spreading: IDC if you spread (I'm an 8/10 on speed) - slow down on tags and cards so I can follow. Please share your speech doc with me if you spread it so I can look back if I need to. I used to spread myself and know how to do it in a nice way.

SPEECHES:

If you are checking my paradigm before an IE round, I am so sorry that you think that you should be judged based on someone's preferences on content. Be confident, and I really hope that you love what you are telling me. I think IEs are unique and cannot be based on my personal preferences and biases. You will do great, I promise!! <3

DO NOT ASK ME TO READ MY PARADIGM FOR YOU.

I WILL get the ick for any arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, discriminatory, and generally anything else you think I would get upset with. I do not tolerate hate in a progressive environment and I will not stand for any of it. Please do not say these things, I will stop listening and will contact your coach.

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.

Kerry Konda Aberdeen Central High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:17 AM CDT

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Ryan Magalhaes Hire

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:30 AM CDT

General Info

I debated public forum all through high school and have done LD and Parli for three years now in college. I am familiar with technical debate from simple T-shells all the way up to Debate Ks. I can also evaluate on the surface level of standard cost/benefit analysis.

Winning my Ballot

Weighing mechanism and impacts are important for me. Tell me what I should vote on and why that means I should vote for you, this includes T and theory. I will not vote on those, if you don't tell me why they matter in the round. You can win on abstract weighing, such as mode of thought arguments, but you need to explain why they're bad. I am a heavy flow debater, so I appreciate sign posting and structure. Ink on the flow is important, dropping arguments can make it very hard to win.

Alongside that, for PF especially you should have a weighing mechanism in case. 1, it helps me understand the theme. 2, it puts all your cards on the table at the start.

Also if you argue nuke war, hope your opponent doesn't question it, because I am highly skeptical of claims that any kind of provocation is going to lead to a nuclear apocalypse. If you can demonstrate an imbalance of nuclear capabilities that is truly significant, you have a chance. Probability will still be low, but I will actually weigh it. Generally though, I don't like low probability-high impact arguments. Along with that, if you say something that is manifestly untrue, it's going to be very easy for your opponent to beat the claim ex. saying that State governments are the same as the federal government. And I don't like deontology as a criterion. It's super common and it doesn't work very often. Please use something else, virtue ethics would be my recommendation.

In any debate format, please avoid just reading cards at me. I appreciate clear, simple statements of impacts and links. I care a lot less about what some author says, than I do about your ability to synthesize information and arguments. (P.S. changing speeds will help with this. You can go faster on cards, then in analytics or tags).

Technical Arguments

Overview - I love LD, but Public forum is a different style. Speeding, Theory and K should be kept in LD and policy, so PF remains accessible. That means that everything I'm about to say doesn't apply to PF. For PF, be much more conversational and avoid shells of any variety, unless you really need to.

CP - Not sure if this belongs in tech, but oh well. CPs need don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive, but it needs to be substantially different. Otherwise, the debate turns into a really mushy thing were it's really hard to distinguish between aff and neg voters.

Ks - I love Ks and am very familiar with the literature, particularly for Cap Ks. The flipside of that is if you do not actually understand your Ks, I will be able to tell. Identity Ks should only be run if 1. there is genuine discriminatory language and 2. you've asked your opponent not to use the language and they refused. If your opponent misgenders you once, you don't correct them, and then you run a K, I'm going to vote you down for leveraging your identity to win the round. Please give your opponents the opportunity to correct themselves, it is very important. I despise K Affs with a passion and a vengeance. They contribute nothing to the debate space besides frustrating inexperienced debaters and completely derail the event. If you run a K aff in front of me, I'm voting you down and giving you the second lowest speaks possible.

Theory - As above, I will vote on theory above anything else, you just have to explain why I should. I also will not vote for a T or Theory if you can't prove abuse. Not necessarily in-round abuse, but I need you to show me something. Disclosure theory in particular is unpersuasive to me, I've been very successful in LD debate with very little use of the Wiki, so I'm skeptical that it's abusive.

T - I will primarily evaluate T-shells based on interpretations, so make sure you have a good reason why I should prefer yours. Also don't forget impacts. If you prove your opponent breaks a rule, but not that it caused any problems, why is it a rule I should follow?

PF - Pleeeaassee don't speed in PF. I will understand you, but I will not be happy.

Closing Thoughts

The primary purpose of debate is education and competition. If you're being rude to your opponent in anyway- either doing any "isms" or just general rudeness -your speaker points will suffer. Be respectful. Be intelligent. And most of all be cool!

Marisa Mayo Hire

Nichole McDowell Des Moines Christian School

Matthew McIver Theodore Roosevelt High School

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School

Angelica Mercado-Ford Washington HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:43 AM CDT

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

Loc Nguyen Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sat July 13, 2024 at 6:50 PM CDT

Hi all! My name is Loc Nguyen (he/him/his) and I am a junior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in Computer Science & Math.

Experience:

Competing

2018-2022: Public Forum Debate at Lincoln Southwest High School

2023-Present: NFA-LD (and some NDT/CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln [Nuclear Posture, Artificial Intelligence]

Coaching

2022: Lab Instructor at NDF

2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

IMPORTANT:

The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and an anonymous opt-out with a backup case or contention. I am okay with most arguments, but be mindful of your opponents.

General:

Top-Shelf: I view debate as a game and my job is to evaluate who wins the game. I am normally tech over truth, however, I'm pretty stupid most of the time so judge instruction is key. I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implication. Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision.

Evidence Exchanges:

I think debaters need todo some form of evidence exchange; I've sat through enough rounds of evidence ethics violations. Please send speech docs before you speak and, at a minimum, send all pieces of evidence you plan on introducing in your speech AND make sure that your cards are actually cut. I personally preferSpeechDrop over email chains. If we have to do an email chain, the subject of the email should have the following format, or something close to it: "Tournament Name - Round # Flight A/B - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)" Please add BOTH nlocdebate@gmail.com and lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.

PF:

Rebuttal: Number your responses, they're pretty helpful. Second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses.

Summary/Final Focus: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments over mass card dumping). Defense isn't sticky; you have to extend it in first summary and I'll flow the responses through, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about; extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Please weigh and weigh comparatively. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary.

Prep: You must take prep time if you are reading or calling for evidence.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, however, that doesn't mean I always enjoy fast rounds. I won’t be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear.

"Progressive" PF:

1) Theory: Perhaps my views will change as I continue to judge more debates or once PF reaches more clear-cut norms for the event. I believe theory has its place in debate. My general thoughts are that disclosure is good as well as open-sourcing and paraphrasing is bad.

2) K's: I have limited experience listening to and judging K’s as well as debating them in college. I'll be willing to listen to them in PF, however, time constraints in PF would probably limit you from engaging in good K debate. Err on the side of over-explanation if you are pursuing this route; I probably don't know your literature. Some kind of material action in the alt is probably good, but I'll leave K articulations and the debate up to you.

LD:

Pref Sheet

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 4

Tricks - Strike

I occasionally judge high school LD, but I don't coach LD. Don’t expect me to always be up to date on circuit norms since I don't judge the event frequently. Defer (mostly) to my PF paradigm if you want to get more of a sense of how I’ll probably evaluate the round, but I’ll be receptive to whatever. In high school I was exposed to a lot more traditional LD from my teammates, but my competition experience in NFA leans policy. Take that as you will. That being said, I’m willing to listen to anything as long as it’s well warranted and implicated and explained well enough for me to vote on it. If I don’t understand it well enough to vote on it, I won’t.

If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me at nlocdebate@gmail.com before and after tournaments, and I would be happy to answer them.

Rachel Overstreet SF Lincoln

Last changed on Fri December 8, 2023 at 1:03 AM CDT

hi my name is rachel (she/her) i’m excited to judge (almost always)

chahta yakni | šuŋgmánitu oyáte

dowling 23- i am going to be judging a ton of pf for the foreseeable future! i'm excited to learn more about a different style of debate. however, the way that I approach rounds pretty much never changes. i only care about the arguments on the flow, not speaking style. i highly value framework debate and impact weighing, and i expect that debaters try their hardest in every round. my paradigm might not be very helpful if you're a PF debater, so feel free to ask me questions before the round. gl everyone!

apple valley 22- email chains consistently annoy me. if you can use speech drop i would appreciate it very much.

going forward- i'm not going to clarify a position on my paradigm for only 1 debater- if you want to ask questions, i think it's only fair that your opponent gets the same opportunity. if you want to email me beforehand, either cc your opponent or just wait until everyone is in the room.

Quick Guide if you want to pref me

1- Give back the land (Tuck and Yang, not Churchill)

Debord

Orthodox Marx (i have mixed opinions on Stalin and Mao. I think there are probably better critical theorists who articulate their ideas better, but whatever floats your boat. Lenin is fine, but I'm only really familiar with Imperialism:HSoC. If you read Krupskaya I'll be stoked).

SC authors (Locke especially, Hobbes 2nd and Rousseau 3rd)

Rawls

Socrates/Plato

2- Butler

LARP (i think of this in two ways, either structurally or argument-wise. I'm pretty solid on both, although you'll be better off dropping some hyper-specific policy language because it wasn't what I usually went for as a debater)

Spinoza (this is only at a 2 because I genuinely don't think you could ever make Ethics topical).

Hegel- i mean what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3- Trad/lay (i debated in SD, so go figure).

SOME DnG (I think I get rhizomatic thought, I think I get schizophrenic capital, I don't understand most of the rest of it. Plz be cautious.

Kant- idk man this is run in so many different ways you should just ask.

4- Middle-of-the-road Performance (I have not yet been able to find a debater that clearly articulated how to substantively weigh performance in a round, and I ran performance several times. If you think you can then go off, I'd love to hear it). This includes poems, songs, personal narratives, etc- see "5" for aggressive or emotionally traumatic performance.

"High Theory"- whatever this means, if it's gonna make my brain bleed i'm not a fan.

Chinese Imperial Philosophy: Confucianism, Taoism.

Theory- I'm not a huge fan and I'm bad at flowing it. Like terrible. Please if you do this to me go very slow I will unintentionally drop 50% of your standards. RVIs mostly good. paragraph theory is fine, it just needs clear impacts to the round/debate space.

5- Evola (ill drop you no cap)

Time Cube >:(

skep

social darwinism

badly done death drive (ie "k*ll everyone, nuke war good). Don't justify oppression, don't be rude. Also in here- physical performance or extremely emotional performance. Do not read me trauma-porn.

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

here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds

1. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

2. warrants that you can actually explain tbh

3. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)

4. when u kick ur F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)

5. when u run a well articulated Kritikal position that ur excited about and that makes me learn stuff ( although it makes me go :/ if it’s clearly commodifying a people group- ex. don’t facilitate a performance you have no stake in)

6. in general if u teach me something that’s great!!!!

here’s a list of things that make me go :( in rounds

1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will

a. drop kick u off the ballot

b. give u the lowest legal speaks

c. talk to ur coach

d. tell ur mom

2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. not gonna drop ur speaks though- its just annoying.

3. don’t run afro pes if ur non black or anything like that- don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it

if you take each part of the debate seriously then u should be fine- most people mess up the most when they get too confident

ask me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to

my email is rdover2@gmail.com if u need it

u get +.1 speaks if u can diss Andrew Myrick in ur speech and it flows well

Maximilian Peters SF Lincoln

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 9:59 AM EDT

Hello! I'm a first-year assistant coach, former debater, and flay judge from South Dakota. I did LD, IX, and CD in high school but am focusing on PF and USX/IX as a coach. The LD and PF sections below are geared towards traditional-style rounds of each event, because that is the style I encounter most often, I am most familiar with, and regarding which I can more accurately describe my paradigm. However, I am open to non-traditional styles, arguments, and approaches as long as you can make sure I know where you're going throughout, without the aid of excessive speed. (To wit, I am (in)famously the judge who voted on disclosure theory at Cavalier Invite.) Please feel free to ask before the round if you have any questions.

I'm most familiar with traditional-style LD. Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, this is how I evaluate all such rounds.

Which value better satisfies the moral obligation of the resolution?
Which criterion better achieves the chosen value in (1)?
Whose contention-level arguments better meet the chosen criterion in (2)?

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is having strong links. For both your sake and mine, please explicitly link your value to the resolution's moral obligation, your criterion to both your and your opponent's values, and your contentions to both your and your opponent's criteria; even if the links are obvious, I can't consider those links unless you're the one making them.If you're planning your 1NR or 2AR, consider walking me through the RFD (by explaining how following that three-step link chain should lead to a ballot for you) and giving me multiple paths to the ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Finally, as a note for those who may not be as familiar with traditional-style frameworks: morality is not in and of itself a moral value, and concepts like equality, fairness, justice, freedom, or the like are values, not criteria. No one in an LD round should be disputing that morality is good, but which moral value ought we prioritize when multiple values conflict, as they almost inevitably will when debating the resolution? And the criterion can't be an abstract concept; that's what your value should be. Instead, the criterion is the yardstick I can use to measure who's meeting the value better. If the value debate is between an actual value and "morality," or if the criterion debate is between a measurable criterion and an abstract value, my decision on which framework to adopt for the round will be fairly easy.

Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, I default to impact-weighing in PF. In such rounds, I analyze each contention independently, and I ask myself if either team still has offense on that contention by the end of the round. After examining every contention on my flow: if only one team has offense, that team wins; if both teams have offense, I weigh the impacts of that offense; and if neither team has offense, I shed a single tear and try my best to figure out who was closest to having any.

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is impact-weighing. For both your sake and mine, please don't assume your impacts are more powerful than your opponents'; tell me not only why you get to your impacts and your opponents don't get to theirs, but give me reasons to prefer your impacts over your opponents'. If you're planning your final focus, consider walking me through the RFD (by very clearly explaining why you have offense and why your offense outweighs theirs) and giving me multiple independent paths to my ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Additionally, a fairly common reason why teams lose in front of me is they don’t extend well enough. I have a high threshold for extensions. You must extend both your link chain and your impact; if you drop either your link chain or your impact, you will not be getting any offense from that contention, as in the best case scenario, either you make something happen but that something has no impact, or you win that something would have a big impact but you that thing won’t actually happen. If you want to win, be thorough on your extensions.

I am fine with frameworks, and I am influenced by my LD background when evaluating rounds with them. If one team runs a framework in their constructive, their opponents must run a counter-framework in the following speech, lest they risk conceding the framework debate. I do want to see you give me warrants for why I should prefer your framework over your opponents' (and to extend them), so I have a way to decide which framework to use. I will not use both. The framework is the lens through which I view the entire round and weigh its impacts. I am willing to vote for teams which lose or concede the framework debate so long as they have impacts which link into their opponents' framework. Therefore, in a round with a contested framework debate, I encourage you to do two sets of weighing: one if you win your framework and one if you lose it. I may weigh the same impact very differently given a different framework with which to weigh.

If neither team runs a framework, I take utilitarianism to be the implicit default. That means that, if your case focuses on some form of structural violence or oppression, I strongly encourage you to run a framework. Otherwise, because utilitarianism treats the utility of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk exactly the same as it does that of anyone who is marginalized or oppressed, I would need you to give me quantifiable impacts that I could weigh against your opponents'. I can't rely on what seems or is obvious; I need you to be the one to verbalize it and get all the way to the quantifiable impact, because otherwise I would be imposing truth over tech.

Critically, under this implicit framework, I'm much more concerned with individual-level impacts than societal-level impacts. What that means is that I won't vote on whether you'll boost GDP, avoid a recession, avert armed conflict, or close an income gap, unless you tell me what concrete effect that has on the real-life people who would be affected. What I care about is how many people you take out of poverty, how many people you prevent from becoming unhoused, how many lives you save, or how future generations would be impacted. I realize not every PF debater is familiar with philosophy, so feel free to ask if you have any questions about utilitarianism or what that means for how I weigh given the absence of a framework.

Finally, as a note on nukes: I'm very skeptical of nuclear armageddon impacts. I won't rule out any arguments before they're made, but if you do make this argument, I'll want you to tell me why your opponents' world leads to nuclear armageddon (and your world doesn't) when it has never happened thus far in the real world, despite plenty of opportunities. (Then again, your opponents also need to make this skepticism argument in the round if they want me to vote on it; otherwise, I'll begrudgingly have to weigh it on my own ballot, but I won't be very happy about it.)

Miscellaneous (all events)

Speed—I don't like speed, and I detest spreading. If you're wondering, "Is this too fast?," the answer is yes. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't flow it; if I can't flow it, I can't weigh it; and if I can't weigh it, I most certainly can't vote on it. You have been warned.

Time—I am strict on time. If my timer goes off or if I raise a closed fist near the end of a speech, that indicates time has expired; at this point, I will stop flowing, and I will not consider anything said in the overrun on my RFD. I time speeches and crossfires beginning with the first word (excluding roadmaps). Additionally, I will start prep immediately once your opponent's speech or crossfire has finished, unless you tell me you're forgoing prep. Telling me you'll "start prep in three, two, one" just wastes three seconds of your prep time, as I've already started timing.

Theory—It may not surprise you to learn, after having read the two prior paragraphs, that I think of myself as quite open to theory shells on the basis of the accessibility of the activity, particularly as such arguments relate to speed, spreading, or time abuse. That said, I’ve only ever actually judged one round that included theory, so I can’t give you much detail on how I evaluate theory arguments, save for the fact that I am willing to vote on it. I do know that statements like "this is PF" or "this is LD" are not theory shells and will win you precisely nothing on my ballot, so please give me a better reason than this. (After all, if you, I, or your opponent is not already aware that they are participating in a PF/LD round, there's likely a much bigger problem at hand.) As long as you can explain to me why something your opponent did makes debate less accessible to others in some way, I'm willing to consider it; I just may be a bit inconsistent with how I adjudicate theory until I've seen it a few times and know what I really feel about different sorts of theory arguments once I've seen them made. As a very important point, however: similar to my policy on frameworks, if your opponent introduces a theory shell, you must respond in your next speech — even if that speech is a PF second constructive — lest you risk dropping that theory shell.

Cross—I have no preference for whether you sit or stand during cross or speeches. If my timer goes off when you're still asking a question in cross, I will advise your opponent not to answer your question. If my timer goes off after you've finished asking a question or during your opponent's response, I will announce that your opponent may choose whether or not to answer the question.

Disclosure—I know this is generally the norm at most tournaments, but since it's less universal in South Dakota specifically, I'll add that I am perfectly fine verbally disclosing my decision and RFD after any round; just give me a few minutes to decide. Please also feel free to take any notes you might need during my disclosure or ask any questions you might have afterwards, as I may not be able to write a detailed RFD by the time the tournament ends and my access to Tabroom's online balloting and RFD system closes, as I'll be more focused on my own debaters.

Signposting—In addition to all the rest, I want to make a special note to implore you to please signpost clearly. If I don't realize where your argument fits on my flow, I may mistakenly think you dropped that argument. Even if I do figure what you're extending or responding to, the time it takes me to figure out where you are on the flow is time I'm distracted from what you're actually saying, which might mean I miss flowing something else that's important. All in all, always signpost.

Tech v. truth—I default to tech over truth, but I reserve the right to make exceptions — principally, if any debater's arguments defend, diminish, excuse, justify, support, or promote a current, historical, or hypothetical genocide or its perpetrators, or otherwise amplify its supporters' claims. If I ever have to invoke such an exception, neither you nor I are going to like it.

Personal attacks—I can't believe I have to say this, butI don't take kindly to claims that, because you're running a contention or framework meant to be helping a certain group of people, and your opponent hasn't responded by conceding the round, your opponent hates, doesn't care about, or is a bigot towards that group of people. I also don't appreciate assertions that, because they have not conceded the round, an opponent does not understand a system of oppression with which they have firsthand lived experience. As I see it, the purpose of such statements is less about paths to the ballot on my flow and more about flustering, frustrating, or angering your opponent into making poor decisions. Unfortunately for people who make these rhetorical choices, those choices also frustrate and anger me, and one of the decisions I have to make is whether I should tank your speaks as a result. Don't do it.

Names and pronouns—Please don't hesitate to let me know if I mispronounce your name or if there's another name you'd like to be called besides what's listed on Tabroom. I also default to using the singular they for all competitors unless told otherwise; I am happy to use any other pronouns instead or in addition if you'd like me to, but please also don't feel any pressure to disclose your pronouns if you'd prefer not to for any reason.

Basic respect—Let's just try to be decent people, folks.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins. I hope you enjoy your round, and best of luck!

Sally Pies Brookings

Patrick Pope Harrisburg High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:52 AM CDT

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

Flow-Centric Evaluation:
- I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
- Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
- I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.
Impacts Matter:
- I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
- Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.
Technical Proficiency:
- I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
- However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.
Clarity and Signposting:
- Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
- Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.
Adaptability:
- I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
- Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.
Framework and Weighing:
- Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
- Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.
Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:
- I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.
Respect and Sportsmanship:
- Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
- I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.
Evidence Quality:
- Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
- Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Tony Raymer Theodore Roosevelt High School

Serena Schadl Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sat July 20, 2024 at 4:29 AM CDT

I am a Sophomore Political Science student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Public Forum coach for Lincoln Southwest HS.

--> NFA LD w/UNL.

--> '23 grad from Lincoln Southwest High School, NE.

--> 4 years in HS Public Forum.

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

Important:

**I would like for a speech drop / email chain to be started before round for evidence exchanges; please add me to the email chain: lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com and/or schadlserena@gmail.com.

**I flow on paper so keep that in mind when you're speaking - I may not get everything down so it is important to emphasize important arguments multiple times!

**If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a trigger warning at the top of your case as well as a backup case if someone in the round opts out.

**You must use prep time in order to read evidence from another team! More NSDA Rules are found here, any violations will reduce speaks and will be notified to the tournament.

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

TLDR - lots of yapping in this paradigm, but here's the gist

How I Evaluate Rounds:

**I am more tech over truth. I will evaluate based off of if you extend your evidence/warrants cleanly throughout speeches. I do not bring my outside knowledge into the round and it is up to you to tell me if I should gut check or call for their evidence. The easiest way to win my ballot is if you clearly warrant, extend, and explain your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am not a big fan of blippy argumentation/card dumping - I think good debaters only have to provide a few great arguments on a contention rather than having 7-10 poorly warranted ones.

**47% AFF (31/66) and 53% NEG (35/66)

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

Public Forum:

**Theory can be okay in PF, but only run it if you are aware that your teammates a) know what disclosure/paraphrasing is and b) have no contact info on the wiki/other ways they'd like you to contact them before round. I do not think you should be running theory shells against JV or against schools that are unaware of disclosure/paraphrasing norms. I am more willing to vote for disclosure/paraphrasing if both teams are well aware of these norms and know what theory is. (I do think disclosure is good, but you have to prove that to me in-round).

**K's generally don't go well in PF and are run very poorly most times, I think running a framework or framing about things like structural violence, etc. is more applicable to the event. Please be topical and relate it to the resolution!

**I think some individuals gets confused over what is considered a counter-plan and what is not in this event. A reminder that counterplans are directly stating that they should do something OTHER than the resolution. [Ex. if the resolution asked if the US should increase trade relations with the EU, a counterplan would be that they should instead increase trade relations with China]

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

Round Preferences:

*Sign-posting & road maps are a must! I need to know where you are on the flow so that I can write it down.

*Speed: I can handle you spreading as long as you a) have a speech doc and b) your opponents are okay with it. I will dock speaks if you are unclear or if you opponents have to tell you to slow down/be clear multiple times throughout the round.

*Impacts: Please try not to use the 900 mil. poverty card unless you can substantially prove to me that it will happen, I think the card is overused and rarely links to the arguments being made. Extinction impacts I will vote on but it usually needs a framing mech for me to want to vote for it - likewise if you want me to prefer high probability impacts.

Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision, I am honestly not paying attention during this time as I am writing feedback; but it should be a time to find holes in your opponent's arguments. Refrain from asking surface level questions like "what is your impact" and try to go deeper into your questioning. Also, any statements like "that's a new argument" or "you conceded this" should not be talked about in cross - cross-x is not a speech! Lastly, if something important happened in cross, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.

Rebuttal: Frontlining (responding to arguments made on your case in first rebuttal) in second rebuttal is a MUST! I think it is hard to gain any offense on the flow if arguments go un-responded. First rebuttal should be only attacking your opponent's case- don't restate your own case because it wastes your time (unless it's a cross application).

Summary: This is the most important speech in the round so this should be a time when you are telling me why you should win! I personally did a line by line summary, but giving me voters is also a great option as well. The most important aspect though is that you are weighing and telling me why your warranting and impacts are better than your opponent's.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary, so please match their voters if they gave any. Line by line is not preferable but at least tell me why you're winning. The final focus is intended to focus the round and give overarching claims and important points that give me a comparison between the AFF and NEG worlds.

**be strategic, find ways to collapse your arguments - try not to go for the whole buffet - pick one or two contentions (if you're running more than 2)

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

LD/Policy:

I am not as familiar with this event in the high school context but I do understand basic policy arguments in terms of NFA LD standards. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms. Lots of the way that I will evaluate the round fall under what I have written in the PF section above, but I will also try to adapt to your style.

General:

--I think sending a doc before each speech if you have new cards you're reading (analytics not needed) is a MUST for varsity debaters.

--A lot of times this event tends to be too heavy on card-dumping and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions. If you can do some sort of framework weighing, impact weighing, etc. - it'll be much easier to win my ballot.

--Tricks are a no-go for me.

K's, Theory, Topicality:

--K's are much more applicable to these events than PF, you just need to substantially prove to me that the alt can solve back for whatever bad thing the AFF is doing. Also, if you have some obscure topic lit. with a bunch of big words - please, please, please explain it so I understand.

--Theory is okay with me, just explain to me why this model of debate you're bringing up should be upheld and why it matters. Frivolous theory is not going to go well and I might just not vote on it if it's nonsensical. Also, you should not be running theory just because you know it'll be an easy win and your opponents won't respond well to it -- theory should only be run if there are true abuses.

--Topicality should be very clear as to why the opponent is not relating to the topic --- I also don't want you to run T arguments that are abusive (I think definition arguments such as the abbreviation of USFG could mean United States Faceters Guild is not going to get you anywhere and doesn't show any reason for me to downvote the team)

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

Speaker Points:

--For open pool: 26 (needs work, many crucial mistakes), 27-28 (quite a few mistakes but attempted frontlines/clash), 29 (good argumentation, good clash interaction, few mistakes), 30 (very clear, minimal changes I would make to the speech). Anything below a 26 means something seriously offensive/abusive happened in round. Also being condescending towards your opponents or not abiding by NSDA rules will drop your speaks by 0.5-1pts.

--For middle school / novice pool: 27 (needs work, no clash in round), 28 (quite a few mistakes, minimal clash, but good arguments), 29 (good argumentation, a few mistakes here an there), 30 (very clear, minimal mistakes, clashed well with opponent's arguments). I will not give anything below a 27 unless something very offensive was said in the round. Being condescending towards your opponents will drop speaks by 0.5-1 pts. I am less likely to penalize with lower speaks for not abiding by NSDA rules, but I will warn you for next time.

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

Other Things to Keep in Mind:

**NSDA allows paraphrasing in-round (PF), but if an opponent asks for the cut card and cites w/ author quals, you are obligated to give it to them! If there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical. I will also drop speaks by 0.5pts.

*Please don't hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round (via email: schadlserena@gmail.com or IRL)! I am open to discussion of how I evaluated. I completely understand some frustration when judges don't vote in a way that you favor and am open to any discussions about any issues you have with my decision (of course, I will not change my ballot after I submit it).

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

About Me:

--NFA LD Nationals Double-Octofinalist ('24)

--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate

--Competed at NSDA Nationals in World Schools ('22 & '23)

--Nebraska State Quarterfinalist in PF ('22 & '23)

--Competed 4 years in HS Public Forum on National & NE Circuit ('19-'23)

yeqing tang Montgomery Blair

Jeff Thormodsgard SF Roosevelt

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 1:48 PM CDT

Jeffrey Thormodsgard

Assistant Coach of Debate at Roosevelt High School, Sioux Falls, SD

pronouns: he/him

Please add my email to the email chain: jeffrey.thormodsgard@k12.sd.us

I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students. Speech > Speech Doc

I prefer providing oral RFDs unless rounds are extremely complicated or messy —those RFDs take more time. I understand the commitment you put into the activity so I try my best to put the same amount of effort into judging and making a decision. Nothing is worse than when a judge does not care about what they do and does not give you real feedback because the whole point of the activity is education and to learn. Post round oral disclosure is good. I subscribe to (most of) Lawrence Zhou's thoughts on the matter here. If you're from South Dakota, bonus points if you read that one. ;)

My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate start time. When prep time ends, you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time. Assume I'm running the clock.

Public Forum

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. I can keep up with speed, but please make sure to articulate yourself. If I can't understand the words you are saying at the pace you're saying them, then I can't flow. In addition, the speed at which you're talking shouldn't interfere with your presentation. If I don’t flow it, it doesn’t exist. If you're going too fast, I'll communicate that in round. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language... If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up). I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275+ words per minute. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop it, it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Rebuttals:

If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on the opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to args made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. If you speak second and don’t answer turns in rebuttal, you will almost certainly lose the round if your opponents go for those turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with you kicking arguments and thinking strategically during the round.

Summary/FF:

I like clear voting issues. Summary and final focus should crystallize the round. Don't just do line-by-line. Also, if an argument isn't extended in both summary and FF, I won't vote on it.

Crossfire:

Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

Prep time/calling for cards:

If it looks like you are prepping, I will start the clock. I'm fine if you time your own prep, but know that I am also keeping time and my time is the official time.

I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent rather than doing this inefficient one (1) card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do though, please be efficient. I blame inefficient evidence exchange on the team fetching the evidence, not on the team requesting it.

Debate is an activity about high quality research not writing a persuasive English paper. If you paraphrase (1) you shouldn't be, and (2)then you really need to have the cut cards ready at a minimum. A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct citation as well as the important/cited parts of the card being emphasized. Evidence should be able to be sent when asked for in a timely manner. If it is not sent quickly it may be dropped from the debate. If you're using an email chain, I don't care how many tech. issues you have, I'm keeping a running clock. Have your evidence sent over at the start to your opp, or hand over your device when evidence is called for.

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans

Run whatever you think will win.

Public Forum time structures are not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. No plan texts or counterplan texts please (note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument, just answer it...).

If you're running K arguments, I'm expecting strong blocks -your case relies on it. If you're using a K to avoid clash, don't. If you're spreading on a K, don't make the round harder than it has to be. K's should be about education. If no one in the round understands you b/c your argument is using complicated jargon and you're spreading, you aren't achieving your goal. Make it accessible. Non-topical Ks need to have justification and should be engaged with - don't be abusive and avoid vague alts.

Very high threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. Theory should be a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard.

Disclosure is good (on balance)

I feel that debaters/teams should disclose. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate.

ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

Framework

TLDR: If your version of debate doesn't promote clash, you're going to have a tough time winning my ballot. Beyond that, it's about the learning.

Postrounding

Postround as hard as you want. I won't change my decision, but I believe it helps education for the activity for both judge and debaters.

Other stuff:

Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible for you. Know that the tournament has an equity officer for a reason.
Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will fail. There's a reason speech times decrease.
Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. I try to be as wary as possible of my own implicit biases in giving low speaks for this. I've had too many of my students (especially women and POC) docked speaker points for being "too aggressive" towards or for "interrupting" their male opponents. If you feel I am unfair on this, postround me, and we can discuss.
I will negate speaks for pretending something was in summ when it wasn't; pretending your opponents didn't respond when they did; etc. You need to meet your opponent at their best, as they should do to you.
Speaks from me should be seen as percentages sans the first number i.e. 30.0 = 100%, 29.9 = 99%, 29.8= 98%

I occasionally judge LD. My stances on all of the above carry over. You need to weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions - and tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. You should clearly communicate the connection of your philosophy to your contentions. While I like to think I have a functioning working knowledge of many of the V/C scholars, my background is in Lacanian lit. crit. (Marx, decon., race, gender, queer theory, etc. are all in my wheelhouse), so help me out with specifically who we're talking about and what facet of their oeuvre you're using. Ignore the contentions debate and lose. Ignore the V/C debate and lose.

Anja Waugh Hire

Monica Wilke-Brown Theodore Roosevelt High School

Login to Tabroom

The Paradigm at Dowling Catholic

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges