Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

Hello!

I am a Spanish teacher and an avid volunteer with our debate team. I judge frequently and have judged 14 lincoln-douglas rounds on this topic.

I enjoy persuasive, conversation-paced debates. Tell me clearly why I should vote for you. Explain your evidence and your arguments and be kind about it.

I do my best to take notes throughout the debate, but I am not a “flow” judge.

Work hard, be kind, and have fun!”

she/her

Can put me on the email chain: lauren [dot] burdt [at] gmail.com

Would prefer Tabroom's anonymized docs sharing if enabled

Background: I coached national circuit LD in Iowa and Nebraska until 2018. Have coached students to late elims of the TOC and NSDA Nats. I've mostly been in tab rooms and judging locally since then, so my threshold for speed and recognition of new arg trends has gone down since then. Debate's your game; I'm happy to be in the back of the room for whatever you prefer to do as long as we're all safe and having fun. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well-researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate, I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

Couple specific things:

-Speed: Probably not keeping up with your top speed these days. Will yell slow and clear. If you're debating someone who asks you to slow down, I expect you to make your best efforts to ensure they can follow the debate.

-Theory/phil: Sure. This is how I debated. I enjoy framing-heavy debates that compare the applications of different ethical frameworks. Engagement > evasion; extensions of a dropped sentence fragment buried within a paragraph of analytics do not particularly excite me.

-T: Substantive topicality debates ("T as a turn to aff's method") typically fare better with me in the back of the room than "aff must read plan", but I'm down for whatever floats your boat.

-K: Sure. This is primarily what I coached. Feel like these debates have gotten more buzzwordy these days which is not a great strategy to pick up my ballot. I'm uninterested in imposing my own ideological preferences as a judge, and I'm open to experimentation with what debate can/should be. I judge a lot of clash debates.

-General: I'm not following along in the doc. I flow speeches straight down and I evaluate debates holistically. Explanation matters, judge instruction important, big picture storytelling good.

-Happy! I like it when debaters are nice to each other. The friends you make in debate will last much longer than your memory of Ws and Ls. Personality is fun, sass is fun, but I have a pretty low threshold for being frustrated with actions and behaviors that work against building community. Have fun, be smart, and I'll do my best to evaluate rounds the way you tell me to.

Background

I did varsity policy debate and Domestic extemp for 4 years at Watertown, SD high school. During that time I qualified for NSDA Nationals 2 times in policy debate and was a 3 time place winner at the SDHSAA state tournament. I judge fairly consistently throughout the season.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

LD Paradigm

I have started judging more LD since policy is no longer a thing in South Dakota. I don't have a super deep understanding of all the philosophy but I do generally understand most of the frameworks I've heard. For me, I prefer a good framework debate backed up with solid contention level arguments. If you can put those two things together I am usually pretty happy. I prefer debate with clash. If you plan on both agreeing to the same framework you will need some good offense on the contention level.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

PF Paradigm

I enjoy it when there is good, legitimate clash within the round that extends past the first 4 speeches of the round. Impact things out for me. If you are going to be reading framework in the round relate your contention level arguments back to your framework. Weigh your framework against theirs and tell me why I should prefer yours.

If a card is called for, to me, this is dead time in the round. No one is doing anything. The team that needs to provide the evidence finds it swiftly, the team who called for the evidence looks at what they need to see with their prep running, and then we resume with the next thing in the round whether that be a teams prep, cross-fire, or a speech. If you are looking for evidence and your partner is prepping, your prep will be running.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

Policy Paradigm (A thing of the past in SD)

Speed- No preference. I only evaluate what I have flowed, and if I can’t understand it chances are it’s not flowed. I don’t need a copy of the speeches, I will ask for cards at the end of the round if I need to look at something.

Tag team CX- Prompt your partner, or provide tags and dates, but don’t dominate if it’s not your CX.

Prep- I don’t take time for flashing unless it becomes excessive. I will more than likely not stop prep when you ask me to, so beware of that. If you tell me to end prep, and you are still talking and typing on your computer, prep will keep going. Prep stealing will not be tolerated.

T- Don’t run it as a time suck. I rarely will vote on potential abuse, even if clearly dropped by the aff. My view is that T is all or nothing, so if you’re going to close for it, you had better be doing 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. Aff is presumed topical until shown otherwise. That being said, if they are truly not within the resolution—I will be more likely to vote on T.

Disadvantages- If you are not reading a DA on the neg you better have something to blow them out of the water. I tend to be very easily persuaded by no link analyticals and uniqueness overwhelms the link claims made by the affirmative. I think that there needs to be a clear link between affirmative action and the scenario that the neg is proposing. You the DA as leverage against the aff’s advantages. I am a huge fan of disad solves case arguments. Politics disads typically turn into a wash for me, absent a huge mistake by the affirmative. I don’t think that the link story of Congressional members ditching their parties or the whole Congressional body switching their votes from the Uniqueness that has been read are even mildly plausible.

Kritik- I was never a big fan of them when I was debating. If you are going to run one and want me to vote on it, you must do several things. First—have an alt that is very similar to a 1AC’s plan text, something that can actually happen if I were to vote negative. Second, you have to have clear solvency for that alt. I will be weighing the K against the aff’s advantages in terms of comparative solvency.

Counterplans- I think that CP’s should challenge the aff’s advocacy or provide a better method of solving the impacts in the aff case. The counterplan must be non-topical, otherwise I will almost immediately vote aff on the perm. In the same fashion as K’s I will be weighing the CP against the aff case in terms of comparative solvency. The CP must solve the impacts of the 1AC—otherwise running the CP is pointless in my mind. CP has to have a clear Net benefit that is not “It’s better than the aff”. You need to have something bad that the aff plan would trigger, but the CP avoids, this is where your generic disads come into play.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

I did LD for four years in high school for Dowling Catholic and graduated in 2015. Since then, I got my BFA in theater and MA in Performance Studies focusing on performance philosophy and theory. I've been mostly out of debate other than some sporadic judging since 2017, so please be extra clear and have a good ballot story for me in the rebuttals!

I primarily debated Ks, but am comfortable with most arguments. On shorter arguments of any kind, including but not limited to theory, please slow down. Not a huge fan of "tricky" debate, but please be sure to include and be clear on the warrants. Do as much work in evidence comparison and weighing as possible.

Ultimately - I'm open to whatever kind of debate the debaters bring to me, as long as it is not discriminatory in any way. No matter what kind of debate you want to have, just be sure to tell me how and why to vote for you.

email is catikalinoski@gmail.com

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

I studied Environmental Science and Political Science in college, worked in Environmental Health and Protection, and I have an EMT certification. I debated LD in high school, and I have experience judging both LD and PF. Keep it interesting

[This will be subject to heavy revision going into the Jan-Feb '25 topic because I have thoughts on it that I think are important for you to know when I'm in the back of your round]

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

My educational backround is in History, Education, and Political Science.

My paradigm is long but just know that I am genuinely here to make the round and debate as welcoming and accessible for you as possible. ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

If there's an email chain my email is Smarkley020904@gmail.com

^ I will not evaluate anything not highlighted in your case unless your opponent brings it up to say you're misconstruing evidence.

——> tl;dr <——

Quality of arguments > quantity. I don't feel like it's my place to tell you what to run unless it's discriminatory (k's and cp's are fine but theory arguments against them are also fine. Fully depends on how y'all argue it), BIG ON FRAMEWORK. I'm good if you want to workshop something new, I like to think I provide good feedback and pointers.

My personal comments to you are mix of "here is how I am evaluating the round after a speech you give" to walk you through my thought process, along with pointers and recommendations I would give that didn't necessarily factor into my evaluation of the round or how I voted. So if I mention something in there and you're thinking "This was never something my opponent brought up? Why did he vote on this?" the answer is that it wasn't something I voted on but is rather a recommendation on how to strengthen your case or a speech.

——> LD <——

tech > "truth". But don't drown your opponent in blippy responses or run an argument that is exclusionary.

I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms if you're running a consequentialist framework.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 3+ minutes alone on framework in the constructive? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted, andan analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs.I have opinions on this that are too long for a paradigm which range from fairness to education to advocacy to my role as an educator, feel free to ask me about it out-of-round if you want me to nerd out. Just know that you can still argue theory against these and say they are abusive or non-topical, I just won't automatically throw them out. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I dislike hyper-specific advocacies in LD. I don't think solely focusing on one country for an international/regional topic is doing enough for me to affirm "as a general principle" without some really good explanation. If you're running a hyper-specific framework that is super interesting, then that's a different story! but don't focus on one case study. Unfortunately the NSDA seems to disagree with me on hyper-specific advocacies considering their Jan/Feb LD lineup.

WHEN EXTENDING AND CROSS-APPLYING YOU NEED TO SAY MORE THAN JUST "Extend Horowitz '21". I don't flow authors. Explain to me what Horowitz is saying and WHY it adequately refutes their point.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

My standard on paraphrasing is basically reasonability. My ideal world is that every paraphrased source has the piece of direct text copy and pasted underneath it so I can see directly what you're pulling from.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make 1-2 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

Thomas Mayes

I do not want to be on the e-mail chain.

He/him/his

You are likely to run into me at Iowa tournaments. I nearly always judge LD. (I judge P/F and Policy on rare occasion. Following my LD paradigm in those events would serve you well also.)

Please keep in mind the following three things, which apply to any form of argument you may consider using:
1. Tell me what to prefer.
2. Tell me why to prefer it.
3. Tell me that you did what I should prefer (at least better than your adversary).

Although I have been around LD since the earth cooled, I have no views about how LD should be. I am not tied to a historical ideal of the activity. In my view, the nature of the activity is to be resolved by coaches, competitors, and competition committees. My job is to evaluate the round that is presented to me, as it is presented to me. I evaluate rounds based on their internal competitiveness, not against some external standard of goodness.

I have no default "positions" or evaluative mechanisms. I will listen to any type of argument. If there is weighing to do, please do it. Since this is a competitive activity, I must award a ballot to someone. If there is no reason to affirm or negate at the end of the round, and I am left to my own devices (meaning neither competitor has done a good job of attending to the three items above), I will penalize the debater who made the biggest strategic error by assigning that debater the loss. Since this is a competitive activity, I will be constrained by any instructions on the ballot (such as instructions regarding burdens, speaker point allocations, etc.).

I am fairly generous with speaker points, tending to cluster around a 27.5 on the customary 1-30 scale. To ensure I remain generous, (1) be smart, (2) be authentic, (3) be decent to your adversary, (4) be clever, and (5) keep trying and pressing your positions until the timer goes off (even if you think you're losing).

Background: I have degrees from Baylor, Iowa, and Lehigh. I have been a practicing attorney for many years and am currently general counsel for the Iowa Department of Education. My favorite things are running, spicy food, caffeine, collecting passport stamps, and Luka Doncic.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

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

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

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

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

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

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

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

What this means:

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

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

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

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aff

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

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

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

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Contact info: Jess, They/She, jessodebato@gmail.com

Speech drop > Email

Quick Version :p

1 = Strike me; 10 = Pref me

Tech over Truth

K-Debate & LARP = 10

Phil = 9

Topicality = 8

Theory = 6

Trix = 2

Long Version :/

Experience:

- Queer+ Blasian

- Policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD).

- Read phil and k

I am a queer Asian/Black person. To be objective, requires me to acknowledge my social location. I read Reid-Brinkley’s essay on Debate and racial performance last summer and was struck by so many things that were purely true. I want those in debate to not have to perform something that they are not. Being a black debator doesn’t mean you have to read Afro pess or a queer debator doesn’t mean you have to focus only on queer issues. But in the flip side, I see how insidious debate is with the privileging of extinction level impacts that continuously abstract debators from the resolution and their embodiment. This is where I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to, your bodies, minds, and wishes precede those of what is expected of you to get the ballot. Being Tabula rasa, to me, means to be anything but a blank slate, it requires understanding a multiplicity of difference that integrally affects how I adjudate the round - “the thing then becomes it’s opposite”, subjectivism turns to objectivism.

Current paradigm (2022-current) ~~~~

Preferences are 1 (low) - 10 (high pref). X marks the spot.

Stock/Util affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

Notice how I put stock “LARP” affs on the same level as K affs. I think I have equally voted for both styles of argumentation equally. I have seen some fantastic Stock affs that fundamentally interact with K’s and explain the K’s theory of power better than they do. It’s not about what kind of argument, but how you have weaved what you are defending to attack your opponents stuff. For example, I watched an stock gun control aff hit a queer rage aff, whereas the gun control aff used the theory of criminalization of urban areas to impact turn social death - that absent threat of force, the criminalization of entire populations in urban areas, which include queer people would have no justification.

Kritiks/K-Affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

I love K debate that is explained well! Give me good links, clever argumentation that interacts with your opponents arguments/assumptions! I love queer pess, Afro pess, historical materialism ~ new developments in K lit. As long as you make your arguments apparent and not obscure to the point that your opponent doesn’t know what’s going on, then we’ll be good.

Theory: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I will and have voted on topicality before, but I also understand how FW debate has been used to silence alternative styles of debating. What this means is that I’ll evaluate T on offense/defense - as long as you give me a clear picture about why the standards are important to fairness/education and how these benefits outweighs any of the aff’s impact turns on the T she’ll, then we’ll be good.Please don’t be blippy - T debate often happens like so, just make it clear and It’ll do you lots of good.

I’m open to lots of diff t stuff - such as the Reid-Brinkley Three tiered process stuff that’s going around, accessibility arguments, disclosure.

DA/CP: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I was taught stock policy by this one funny norfolk mentor, who always ranted about the Stock issues With that being said, I’ll evaluate CP/DA akin to how policy debators in the past have debated it. I’m cool with that.

Trix: X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Trix are anti-educational - due to an over focus on semantics that is exclusionary to ELL debators, and a heavy emphasis on technique that is exclusionary to debators with dis/abilities, I won’t evaluate trix.

Okay so note on spreading - there’s a distinction between speed reading and spreading that is found on the nat circuit. I’m leaning more towards pretty quick speed reading - I may miss things if you spread. Most of all make sure your opponent isn’t excluded in your in round practices. I used to hate spreading because of not being able to understand things, but now listening to circuit debators I really think it’s just a clarity thing cuz debators were just not being clear.

Old Paradigm (2019-2021)~~~~~~~~

policy read this -

I'm cool with k's/k aff's/or very stock policy debate.

I have a leaning towards K's, but equally said, I love it when stock policy aff's have substantial meaningful engagment with K. I'll vote for a da, t, really whatever you give me. Sorry this is short, but i can answer more questions and also i forgot to write a paradigm.

If you were to read anything on my paradigm please look at these three things first.

1) No spreading at all. Here's why: Debate has become a hyper-competitive activity. Debaters don’t get better at uncovering the truth or debating, they become better at winning debates. The hyper-competitiveness of debate has pushed the development of itself toward a technique-orientation. In the final analysis, the rounds are not about the truth and passion of your arguments, it’s about how many arguments you can put down, how fast you debate, analytical tricks you hide in your case, and your ability to extemp answers on the spot. This high standard of professionalism and prioritization of technique over truth leads to an exclusionary space. It constantly skills checks debators – excluding debators with disabilities and shutting out truthful arguments that don’t conform to norms. As a judge, I am obligated to disincentive ableism in all its manifestations. I want to change my community for the better. Although spreading is a norm in both LD and Policy, in order for debate to be a truly educational and inclusive space I must be diametrically opposed to it. Moreover, spreading excludes debators who don't speak english as a first language. I had many friends who weren't considered "successful" in this activity because they couldn't keep up. With this in mind, I am wholly truth over technique. Even if you don't word an argument in the most fluent way, I will still give it credence when I see you try your best to explain something to the fullest. What matters to me in debate, is not how many arguments you can dish out, but how you carry through with your arguments, how you defend them, and how you develop them within the round.

2) I have a high standard for quality of evidence. If you read to me a bunch of extinction impacts with highly suspect warrants, I will, on face, throw the impacts away. Here's why: Extinction impacts have become oversaturated in the debate space in both policy and LD. Once again we return to the topic on how debate has become a hypercompetitive activity - it's easy to win off extinction impacts when you can prove the tiniest bit of a risk, even if there is little or no connection between the resolution and the actual terminal impact. This trend in debate suffocates the real and harmful oppression impacts that affects a plethora of disadvantaged groups. In so far as low probability extinction impacts could always be used to make light of tremendously harmful oppression concerns, I have the obligation as an educator to view them with more scrutiny. My requirement is this - in order to have me evaluate your extinction impact you must have tremendously high uniqueness and deliver to me a crystal clear scenario-link chain. I will be flowing every single sentence of your warrant.

3) If you are gonna make a bunch of turns and analytics, they must be as clear as day. I want your arguments to be fully developed. Please explain fully how something is a turn, rather than merely labeling it as one. If these turns and analytics aren't sufficiently warranted I won't be able to evaluate them.

LD Debate -

General: I try my best to vote off what I hear in round and to minimize my biases. Even though debate is competitve, be cordial with eachother. Hostility is anti-education and I will intervene if I have to. Genuine engagement with your evidence (don't card dump!) and one another is really important to me.

V/C: I evaluate the round through whatever ethical lens you give me. That can be value/criterion, standard, R.O.B, etc.

Tricks: Blippy arguments make me sad :(.

Affirmative: I think debates are better when Affs are resolutional, but am open to kritial affs.

Topicality: I have a higher threshold in terms of actual abuse, but the opponent has to give reasons as to why potential abuse is bad. I'll vote for topicality based on what ya'll bring to the table.

Kritiks: Those are fine as long as they are coherent. Explain your link, impact, and alternative well to your opponent.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

Sioux Falls Jefferson LD and IE Coach

"Sauce Boss"

Debate Rounds Judged: A lot (130+ish i think?)

General -

Aberdeen Central ‘21

Tech>truth

Tabula Rasa Judge overall

For the love of god please make evidence sharing short and sweet, It does not need to take 5 mins of time to share it, please do not have it take that long.

I used to disclose but after arguments with debaters as to why I am wrong has turned me off to wanting to do it. More likely than not I am not going to. showing up to the debate round last minute on purpose is pretty annoying, if you are near the room, go in so we can start the round.

New in the 2 = Dumb. Do not make new args in non constructive speeches. I am a 5-6 on Speed as well. I have a very high threshold when it comes to the argument of In Round Abuse happening, to me it is an all or nothing argument, not a time suck. I have a high bar when it comes to me voting on RVIs, Condo/Dispo. If you bring 17 arguments to the flow I expect them to be answered by your opponent but you also need to extend and properly handle them. Running Disclosuse Theory with me as a judge = 0 Speaks, A Loss, and me being annoyed for however long the debate is. Stop being a baby and debate, you do not need all of your coaches to do the work for you and prep out a case.

Word usage to avoid with me as your judge -

Racial Slurs, Excessive swearing (a well placed curse is okay once and while),

Circuit Stuff (1-5, 1 meaning i like the arg)

Tech>

1 -

Trad LD
T vs K Affs (hard for me to not vote of it when it is ran, i really do not buy the whole in round education matters more than the round itself)

2 -

Speed (SIGNPOST TAGS, SLOW DOWN ON TAGS PLEASE)
Theory

Res Based Ks

3 -

Phil Debate, In round abuse args

4 -

K Affs (will vote if the Alt is the good)

5 -

High Theory

Non Res Based Ks

LARP

CP, PICs

Strike me -

RVIs good, Death Good Ks, Kant, Queer/Trans Violence against ones self (mentions of self harm = not good for me as your judge)

Strike me AND seek help -

Disclosure Theory / Open Source Theory, Tricks (Cringe)

How I give Speaker Points

I think speaker points are possibly the worst thing about debate since there is not a universal system on what makes a "good speaker". You should not get 25 speaks because you talk fast to a lay judge or get 30 because you spread to a circuit judge. So here is how I give out my speaks and what each means.

23 and Below- Did something in the round that was out of pocket and probably not ethical (IE: -isms, ists)

24-26 - Below Average speaker, you get up in the round and make some arguments but not ones that sound good. Needs serious improvement in more than one area

27 - Average. This is what each speaker starts out in the round for me, you go into the round with 27 speaker points by default

28-29 - Above Average to Elite Speaker - you make some great arguments and have a great flow along with signposting, doing good line by line, and being clear while also formulaic when you speak

30 - The Best Speaker I have seen all year - I do not think I have given out one 30 in all of my judging maybe ever, so this is a high bar. You will need to be perfect to get this. You need to not stumble once, be razor efficient with words and just dice your opponent up.

Ways to get more Speaks in .1s in the Round

Being Funny, Smart, and being a bit sassy in CX is ways to get you some points with me

Making an argument I was thinking of and then saying, shows a high level of talent.

Ways to lose Speaks with me as the Judge.

Running Disclosure Theory, Speed Ks, or just paraphrasing things in general.

Being not nice

IEs
I think that IEs should be based how well you can give me whatever information you have. Oratory, Inform, Interp etc are not my thing even though I have competed in all of those events. If you have me in non extemp, just talk good, and if you have me in Extemp, just know I could really care less about how good you talk and if you give me fluff, I will be to tell if you are actually saying really anything substantive. Content and analysis is way to get the one with me in the back.

Public Fourm

I want offense offense offense, that's how you win with me as a judge in the back, I want to see offense or you will not get my ballot. Do good weighing, Warrant analysis, and clobber your opponent into the ground, and you will get my ballot at the end of the round. While I do not coach PuFo directly, I will most likely have some what of an understanding of the topic but go easy on lingo based in the topic unless I state otherwise. I do not like paraphrased when I am your judge, I think it allows bad debaters to get an advantage. I will not vote you down simply for the fact that you have a case like that but I will be very inclined to listen to Paraphrase theory and that you should vote down the other team for it. But once again, you will have to read that theory argument for me to vote the other team down on it. I think public forum debate can be very lizard brained in the fact that everyone runs the same argument and it gets very boring. I will love to see you run arguments that have sick warrents and great links, I will be much more likely to vote on that compared to a not well thought out case. I am a 6 for speed and prefer tech debate to anything.I default to a CBA FW unless told otherwise. Generally speaking your 2AR/NR should just be voters and why you win the round by framing in the context of the debate (IE: Impact Calc, Solvency)

Do not ask if you can have first question, if you spoke first just start CX. Do not say, "off the clock roadmap", just give me an order. Just say, "Everyone Ready" instead of asking each person in the round, asking everyone wastes my time and yours.

LD

I think i am about as big of a mix of Trad and Circuit judge that you can have. I Coach this activity and I have come to believe that this should not become policy. While I was a policy debater, I think LD should remain mostly sperate from policy. That being said I will be fine with Ks with link to the res. Reading plan text in LD should be in the context of the res itself. I am going to have a very high bar for the evidence that you send me or that you read, if you say that there is a warrant in there that isnt, I am probably not going to eval it as a valid argument. Keep speed to like 5-6, I am fine with speed but PLEASE slow down on your tags, if cant hear or understand you, i am not going to flow. Tech>Truth. Reading the 50 States CP is probably not a good idea with me as your judge. Reading DAs is fine but your links better be good and not just generic Ev. Same with PTX Cases, specifics or i have a high bar for any argument that you make. Overall, keep a good flow, make a good arguments, and youll get my ballot. FW should not always be the most important voter in the round but you should not just drop it after your first speech. AFF has FIAT but I think the neg is going to have a hard time convincing me post res that any of their arguments based X Action happens so that means x actor will do this, you will need to do a lot of convincing me in the link debate to do this.

Policy -

I am a 8 on speed, signpost and you will be just fine, if you do not sign post. I will be slightly annoyed and make faces to show as a such. As someone who practiced their speed and mastered it, I like seeing those who mastered it aswell, that being said, if you cannot clearly spread, don't, I will not dock you if you do not talk fast enough, but I will dock you for talking too fast. I will vote not anything that is - Condo/Dispo, some inround discourse Ks(aka Speed Bad etc), Meme arguments, and Actor CPs. I flow CX and think it is important for argument developing and using it as a tool in your arsenal to clown your opponents.I am not a fan of PICs at all, think they are abusive and leech off aff ground. I tend to lean on a good CP with a mutual exclusivity NB with a sick DA, T, GOOD discourse Ks (IE - Security), Stock issues, politics DAs. I want offense, offense, offense.

Notions I carry with me into the round -

Presumption = Neg. Trying to change of this idea is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute this.

Death is (probably) bad

BQ

Refer to LD and Pufo for framework and weighing arguments. Be the better debater and I will vote for you. I have minimal experience and do not care about this event nearly as much as I do the others.

TL:DR - Tech>Truth. I will vote on Paraphrase theory. Offense wins my ballot. Please signpost and do proper line by line. Disclosure Theory, or Bad Ks = dumb. There is no 3NR/AR

I have been coaching/judging policy debate on and off since I graduated high school in 2009. I was most active in my coaching career from the years of 2010-2016.

I am back now as the assistant debate coach at Harrisburg High School where I primarily deal with LD.

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible, I.E. I am very lazy. If I have to do the work for you, its probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become way more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably wont have flowed everything you've said

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. So if you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are procedural args (vagueness, workability, etc) and any of the stock issues. I used to think I was some huge K hack back in the day but I'm not. I just don't really understand the nuances of the argument. However, that's not to say that I am not down for some well done and insightful K debates but keep in mind I'm definitely not as well versed in the lit as you think I might be and your debating should reflect that. Additionally, a super compelling role of the ballot argument is a must. I also really enjoy good disad and CP debates.

-Disads need to have a clear story to them and have a clear impact. It needs to something quantifiable or articulated well enough to be weighed against the affirmative.

-I really really do not like topicality debates. In all the debates on T I've judged none of them have been super compelling nor warranted my time evaluating. Reasonability is the way to go on this flow for me.

-End of the round impact calculus is really important to me. Please do this.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration. arguments like reject the argument not the team I'm pretty sympathetic towards.

-You should write your ballot for me in the rebuttals.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, debate is a game and you should have fun and learn from it. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

LD Supplement:

This is the event that I primarily judge on my local South Dakota circuit. LD debate here is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go so do whatever, just keep in mind I probably don't understand most of the traditional nuances of the event.

To me, I feel that the criterion should be the framework in which you attain some idea of your value and the way in which I evaluate and weigh you arguments in relation to the other debater.

If I am not told at the end of the round how to frame or evaluate the debate I will default to evaluating the impacts presented in the round and which ones outweigh.

I am absolutely not the judge for Tricks. If this is your strategy going into the round and you do not intend on changing it you will probably lose the round.

PF Supplement:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated at my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in the policy debate section should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your args vs your opponent's. Reference it through out the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read, not paraphrased. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Utilize the summary for impact calculus and the final focus for reasons as to why you win the round.

Basic info about me:

I debated policy (NSDA) for 4 years and currently do LD (NFA) debate in college. I have been coaching for the past 3 years for NFA LD, but I have experience coaching PF, IPDA, and Parli. I will listen to anything and everything. So you do you. As a judge I probably lean more toward tech over truth. But with that said, if an argument is outlandishly false, I probably will not vote for it. I do like some good line-by-line and analytical arguments. Not everything has to be direct evidence reading. You should also do some weighing by the end of the debate, this will make my life easier.

I use they/them pronouns. Be nice and have fun!

Email: trenityr@gmail.com

Speed: I am an 6 out of 10, I can handle speed, but tags must be CLEAR. If not, then I won't get your arguments down. If I am judging you online, please consider lagging and audio quality!

Topicality: I love/hate topicality. If you're aff you do not necessarily need to be topical. However, if you're the neg, you need to prove to me why the aff needs to be topical and why they violate topicality. If you can win the competing interpretation and their interpretation is bad, you will have my vote. The interpretation debate is the MOST important. The next important part would be standards. But I like a good T debate and can vote either way on it.

DA: I am down for any DA as long as it sorta links and sorta makes sense. I prefer a good link chain and storyline with a DA. But please do some good link analysis and impact calculation. This will make my life easier.

CP: These are chill, but I think the neg team should tell me how they have the internal links/impacts of the aff. It should also be clear why the CP is net better and solves better than the aff. There should also be a net benefit. The perm debate is also important and should be had.

K's: I love a good cap, fem, or queer K. I read a lot of lit through my years in high school and have definitely expended on it in my time in college. However, if you are going to read some philosophers (like Baudrillard or Nietzsche), please know what you are talking about. As a philosophy major, seeing these people get misconstrued pains me. But I am always down to hear whatever K you have created. Just make sure to explain the link level to the aff and why the alt is net better in whatever you are doing. Also, framework debates on Ks are important and should be had.

K affs: I have run a k aff before, I love performances and k aff lit! Make it yours! Just be ready for a framework debate or a K v K debate. But if you can defend the resolution bad and/or roll of the ballot, you can probably get my vote.

Framework: I think this is a valid argument; fairness can be an impact but MUST be explained well. Do what you want with this and explain it well.

Theory: I will vote on them and think they are fun; make sure to warrant the argument out! There should be some standards and voters with theory.

All of this above applies to policy/ld.

Please tell me how to vote, I do not want to do the work for you.

Ask me any other specific questions if you want!

Email for cards, cases and what you need to send me: emma.sasser9@gmail.com

This makes it very easy for me to follow along in your case! Please send me your stuff!

I don't know prog debate, so if you choose a prog case run at your own risk. I am a trad judge.

I never did debate in High school or college.

Do not spread, its hard for me to follow.

Be passionate!! If you disagree with your position in your debate I should not be able to tell. Please make sure that there is clash in your debates.

You are able to time yourself, I will be timing you as well.

I do not care if you sit or stand, do what is comfortable for you.

Please be respectful during the debate, only use your phone when it is pertinent to the debate/timing, and then just use your common sense and be respectful in general.

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

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.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

TL;DR: Tech > truth. Theoretically will be comfortable voting for any argument you present to me, so run whatever you're best at, and don't over-adapt too much. Comfortable with speed, just include me on the email chain. My email is webb@muhs.edu.

Background: I debated policy and LD at Marquette High in WI before studying philosophy and economics at Yale, and am currently the LD coach at Marquette.

Random Argument Thoughts:

Phil: If running phil cases is your thing, great - I really enjoy philosophy as a subject, and love rounds in which a debater is clearly passionate about a thinker and knows their thought well. If, on the other hand, you're unable to coherently explain your framework in CX, I will likely tank your speaks. FWIW, I wrote my undergrad thesis on Heidegger and plan to write my master's thesis on Nietzsche.

LARP: Probably my favorite kind of arguments to judge because they provide the easiest means to substantively engage with the topic, which I think is a good thing. CPs should be competitive and have net benefits, DAs should have uniqueness, affs should have inherency, etc.

Ks: Go for it. Please just make sure you're able to explain what the links are and how they're contextual to the aff. Ideally, there will be an ROB or some framing work done to explain why the K comes first. I prefer when K affs are at least tangentially related to the topic.

Theory/T: Honestly, I get kinda bored during theory debates and am not great at flowing them if the shells/responses aren't in the doc. My least favorite debate rounds to judge are those in which one side blows up a 5 second blip that their opponent didn't flow. I have a pretty low threshold for buying responses to friv theory.

Tricks: A conceded argument is a conceded argument, so long as it is sufficiently warranted. However, this is the area of debate that I am least familiar with, so these will require you to hold my hand a little bit.

Keeping this specific and on-topic

To give a brief summation of my background, I was a varsity competitor in LD who competed in Nebraska. I am currently pursuing a dual-major Sociology and Anthropology degree, and as such tend to work best in the realm of how philosophical concepts are applied to reality.

Regardless, I'm willing to hear out any number of points so long as the evidence used is both warranted and follows a consistent internal logic. If you are going to run a specific case, run that case instead of trying to haphazardly stick evidence where it does not belong. (Basically, create a clear link between events that implies causation rather than correlation.)


Non-Standard Frameworks: When it comes to Kritik and Theory, I am also willing to hear you out, but justify them well. I am not going to just believe something because you said it, persuade me as an audience member if you are going to tell me that my vote somehow has ramifications extant to the round. Explain why the rules are unfair, give me a justification for its impact on the round, and then sell me on that idea as opposed to a general weighing mechanism.

Dress: I don't care, it's not my job to tell you whether or not you're professionally dressed. Your words are the main thing I'm here to evaluate.

Disclosure-based Argumentation: Norfolk Senior High (the school I attended) was by no means a large school, and arguments of non-disclosure being an issue for smaller schools will not win me over easily. If you are going to argue Disclosure with me as a judge, it better be warranted extremely well. I will not drop you for running it (my position as a judge doesn't let me write off things that I've never heard), but if I am to believe that my vote as a judge should influence the world external to the round, then I should understand how and why a third-party wiki is supposed to be a benefit to the debate space.

Vocal Delivery: I am not too critical of superficial things such as stuttering or struggling to pronounce lengthy words. So long as you complete your argument, I don't mind.

That being said, please be articulate when reading. I only flow what I can understand as an observer, so spread at your own risk. You can ask me to call out to you if I'm no longer following if that helps you to stay on pace. Sharing your case on a speechdrop may also be of use if you need to read quickly, just please don't use it as a catch-all.

Evidence / Tagging: Common sense applies here mostly. Please tag cards appropriately, give author and year (month may also be good), and make sure you are explaining your evidence without cherry-picking facts and statistics from your source. If someone calls you out on using a source which is also highly critical of your advocacy, it doesn't look great for your credibility.

Framework Arguments: Clarity is the word of the day here. I love heady and incredibly abstract framework, but it should be explained in such a way that I understand how and why you are specifically using it.

If you are going to use something, define it in your case please. I have seen too many cases where the framework uses a value that has no specific definition with the expectation that the criterion will explain the value. In these cases, I will more likely than not have to end up evaluating your case as a single-standard.

Similarly, if you have a very complex framework, explain it in detail. I should at least have a baseline enough knowledge to understand why it is both important and topical.

Note: If you put an asterisk-style argument where I am not allowed to vote for the opponent for x reason, warrant this out as well. If it's just there and you don't explain why specifically it needs to be, I probably will not care enough to weigh it.

Case-level Arguments: I tend to be very perceptive to specific and well-explained impacts. I also tend to be very critical of hyperbolic impact chains that lead to annihilation of some sort.

Rhetorical usage of multitudinous impacts tends to spread them thin for me. Go all in on a few key points.

TL;DR: I'm pretty open to new and different styles of argument, just make sure that your arguments are well-warranted and have specific impacts.

Contacting Me: If you, or a coach, needs to get a hold of me to ask for some clarification on a specific judging decision, you can reach me at RaderaFiskan@gmail.com

Best of luck to the competitors!

Last Revision: December 9th, 2019

*Digital Debate Note (added 5/16/20):

1) I can handle just about any speed in person. The same doesn't hold true for online debate (at least until I get better equipment/get used to it). I hate telling people to slow down, but you should slow down during online debates. I will indicate via the chat function or by interrupting if you are lagging (just as I would say clear).

2) If someone drops out of the round via connection issues, we will pause the speeches.

3) Just like you wouldn't cheat by chatting with a coach during an in-person tournament, don't cheat in online debate.

4) Don't record the round without the permission of the tournament and everyone in the room.

TL;DR

Email for evidence/cases: colwhite54@gmail.com

I’ve coached or debated in just about every event, and I’ll do my best to adjudicate the debate as fairly as I can. Your best strategy is probably to make the arguments that you think would be the best arguments to win the debate. As long as you can do that while being a kind and ethical competitor, then you’re good to go. Respect the other people in the room and don’t be a jerk.

Let me know if you have any questions that aren’t answered by this paradigm.

Commonly asked questions about my preferences on a spectrum (heavily dependent on context - you do you 95% of the time):

Truth over Tech <----------------X---------> Tech Over Truth

• It’s probably not my job to say what’s true, but silly arguments have a much higher threshold of persuasion.

Speed <----X---------------------> NO Speed

• I mostly judge on a local circuit, but assume I can follow unless I say clear/speed.

“Trad” <------------------X-------> “Progressive/Circuit”

• I dislike these descriptors, so try to be more specific with your questions.

Debate the Topic <----X---------------------> Non-T

• I’ve personally read and voted for/against both, but I usually prefer if you debate the topic.

Quality of Evidence <-X------------------------> A Billion Terrible Cards

Number Your Arguments <-------X-------------------> Say “AND” between each card/analytic

Experience

I am the head coach at Lincoln Southeast High School, the former head coach at Lincoln North Star High School, and a former assistant coach at Lincoln East High School. I have been coaching since 2015. I run the Lincoln-Douglas Camp at the Nebraska Debate Institute. In college I won the 2018 national championship in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Forensics Association National Tournament after debating with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for three years. I was one of two American debaters to be chosen for the 2019 Tour of Japan through the National Communication Association’s Committee on International Discussion and Debate’s partnership with the Japan Debate Association. I also coached debate in Shanghai, China during 2018 through a summer fellowship with LearningLeaders. I competed in Nebraska high school debate for 4 years.

Events I most often judge/coach (in order):

HS/College Lincoln-Douglas

HS Policy/CX

HS Public Forum

HS Congress

WSDC (HS Worlds)

British Parliamentary (College Worlds)

American Parliamentary/NPDA (College)

HEnDA (Japanese HS Policy)

Specific Preferences Based on Events

HS LD

I evaluate the framework first and then look at which debater has the biggest and/or most contextualized offense under that framework. If I cannot distinguish your offense from your opponent’s offense, it is difficult for me to assess how the framework operates in the round. You have to tell me why your offense applies to whichever framework we’re using and why your opponent’s offense doesn’t matter or isn’t as important.

Ks are fine, phil is fine, LARP is fine, etc. Just don’t assume I know your lit. Hold yourself to a high threshold of explanation and go for one or two well-developed arguments rather than many arguments that are barely touched on.

Flex Prep: If both debaters are okay with asking questions during CX, then it's fine. I would prefer if you do not skip CX and use the rest as prep time. If you cut CX short, that starts cutting into your prep time.

I will not vote on your short, barely warranted a priori arguments that don’t connect back to a standard. You don’t get an auto-affirm/negate by dunking on silly trick args.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

HS Policy

Refer to the College LD paradigm to answer most of your questions. The only warning I’ll give you is that theory justifications that have to do with the exact format of partner policy debate need to be explained since I usually judge 1-1 policy through college LD. I’m not totally up to date on the cutting edge of thinking about best practices in policy, but that just means you’ll have to warrant your theory args and win them rather than pander to my theoretical biases.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

College LD (NFA-LD)

Yes, I do want the speechdocs.

I don’t find appeals to the rules persuasive.

Ks are fine - contextualize the links as much as you can. I want to know how the alt functions and differs from the Aff.

I will vote neg on presumption if the aff doesn’t function (I won’t vote for an aff with no solvency because they have a “risk of offense” - you have to win that you have a risk of offense).

I don’t need proven abuse to vote on T or theory and I default to competing interps (unless the Aff wins reasons why the neg does need proven abuse or wins reasonability, but that’s hard to do)

Disclosure theory is probably underrated in college LD.

Do not run full-source citations theory.

Public Forum

Don’t read actual plans or counterplans in an attempt to adapt to an LD/Policy judge. However, because I know what these positions are, I won’t drop you or your opponents because they read something that you thought was a plan/CP but wasn’t. Same goes for Ks/Theory Shells (however, theoretical justifications for things like definitions and observations - framework light - are super encouraged).

Read cards rather than paraphrase if you can.