Tabroom.com

LSW Silver Talon

2023 — Lincoln, NE/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Elena Belashchenko Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 4:42 AM CDT

Hello! I'm a second year NFA LD debater at UNL. I debated for 4 years in high school LD at Lincoln East, both on the local (NE) and nat circuit. Add me to the email chain: fondue560@gmail.com, or use speechdrop. I've seen a wide variety of LD styles, and I can probably keep up with whatever you wanna do, so debate however you want to. In high school, I ran a lot of phil, a few ks, and stock and trad stuff. Now in college, I primarily run ks and policy-style arguments since NFA LD is pretty similar to one person policy. I have no preference on what you decide to run, as long as it's not offensive (debate is still supposed to be an educational activity). I decide the round based off of the flow, so focus your energy on winning that. I evaluate impacts based on whatever framework wins the round, so impact weighing definetely helps.

Short Pref:

Run what you run, as long as it's not trixs. Please. I have a really low threshold to responding to trixs.

Stock - can be done well, but can also be bland. go for it

Policy - Go for it.

K - Go for it. If you're running a non-T aff though, I expect you to be ready to argue you shouldn't have to be topical, but I'm cool with these.

Phil - Go for it. I ran a lot of this in high school, but I am a bit rusty on my phil now.

Speed

I can handle speed as long as you're clear. I don't flow off the doc, but if I can't understand you I will say speed/clear a couple of times if I can't flow you. If you don't slow down or enunciate more and I miss stuff, that's on you.

If you're hitting someone who can't handle speed, don't spread. If your opponent asks you to slow down, please do so.

Theory

Please don't run dumb shells! I'll vote on theory if you win it. I evaluate this based on what arguments are made in round. I don't have a strong stance towards competing interps vs reasonability. With the time skew in high school LD, there's strong arguments for reasonability, but simultaneously theory is easier to evaluate under a competing interp paradigm. It's up to the debaters to make the arguments for which one I should use. If there's no argument made for either, I'll default to competing interps since it's easier to evaluate that way.

There's some shells you're going to have a hard time winning in front of me. The one I see the most often is no 1AR theory. Generally, I typically end up evaluating the 1AR theory shell above this shell, since the impacts in those shells are much more fleshed out, and almost always outweigh the impacts in the no 1AR theory shell. If you read this shell in front of me, you're probably wasting your own speech time. I have yet to see someone run this shell with an impact that outweighs the impacts in the aff's shell. On a similar note, I don't need affs to read that they get 1AR theory in the AC. It seems pretty obvious to be that affs should get 1AR theory.

I WILL vote on disclosure theory. This includes both on the wiki, and in round disclosure. If you don't know what the wiki is or how to use it, ask. There are a few valid reasons not to disclose on the wiki (ex: identity related arguments), but for the most part I believe disclosure is the best practice. If you aren't sharing speech docs in round, it won't be very hard for your opponent to win on theory. If you don't share speech docs in round and your opponent runs a disclosure shell, you should expect to lose my ballot unless you have a REALLY REALLY strong reason as to why you didn't. This is probably one of the only strong beliefs I hold about debate! I believe it's a super bad practice in debate to refuse to share the evidence you are reading with your opponent. If your cards are good and say what you say they say, you should have no problem with your opponent (and judges) to see your case.

T can be really, really powerful. If aff is obviously topical, I do think it's abusive to run a shell given the time skew in high school LD, but I'll still vote on it if you win it.

The format used for T and theory is usually pretty similar, so my stance on things like competing interps and reasonability is also pretty much the same.

If you're going for T, all 6 minutes of the 2N should probably be T.

Go for it. I've ran these periodically throughout my years as a debater, both topical and non topical. Non topical k affs are fine, but obviously run T against these. If you run a non topical aff, be prepared to respond to T. If you're non topical, I do think you should be able to defend being non topical. Have a clear link, impact, alt/advocacy, and role of the ballot to make my job easier.

Know your lit well enough to explain to me what I'm voting for. I want a clear picture of what the K is throughout the round. This means that having clear overviews would probably help you out, since these make it super, super clear what the K is about.

Some K rounds can get messy, especially when it's K v K. Please signpost. I like good line-by-line, but understand these are sometimes difficult in K rounds. Try to make your speeches as organized as you can while still communicating what I'm voting for.

DA/CP

DAs are cool. CPs are cool. Maybe don't be a debater that runs an excessive amount of offs, especially in LD, but ig if that's what you want to do, it's your round to decide the strat, not mine. If there's clearly an excessive amount (>5 for sure, but depends on the offs), theory is a viable aff strat against it. I'll do my best to vote off the flow though, so if you want to run a lot of offs, that's your decision.

Please try not to run offs that contradict each other.

Phil

I can usually understand phil pretty easily, so feel free to run whatever philosophy you want to. You do have to actually explain your phil though, even if it's one that I'm familiar with. Don't bank on me just knowing your arguments, even if it's one you know I've ran in the past. I haven't looked at a lot of the arguments I used to run since high school, so I'm a bit rusty on the authors I used to be really familiar with. I'll evaluate the round based on what's on the flow, so don't assume I know something if you don't say it in round. With phil rounds, I need to have a clear framework I'm voting under and clear impacts that flow under it.

Mary-kate Boyle Millard West High School

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 1:00 PM CDT

Hello!

My name is Mary-kate, I use she/they pronouns. I did two years of LD debate in high school, (1yr for LSW and 1yr for LNS). I am currently a junior at UNL studying Philosophy and planning on going to grad school for Philosophy.

I like speech docs, my email is kati3boy@gmail.com or we can do a speech drop thing.

I'll probably remember most of the terminology/ advanced case types (like Ks, some counter-plans, some theory, etc..) you use, but if you think something could be out of my wheelhouse, mention it to me before round, and I will let you know what I know. :)

As far as what types of cases I prefer anything philosophy-based is right up my alley! Specifically, I do a lot of work on Kant + Phil Language/Phil Mind- but I have yet to ever see a debate case about the ladder two of those haha.

Unlike a lot of other judges, I don't care as much about the technicality of the round on the flow. It's obviously important to a certain extent, but I think it's a poor educational model to care about what arguments get “dropped” by an opposing team if they are bad and incoherent arguments. For example, if you present a framework of Kant's Categorical Imperative that simply doesn't function, I won't vote on it- even if your opponent doesn't have an answer to it. I should clarify what I mean by this--- it won't play a positive role in my decision to vote for you. Now, with that being said, I am not going to hold you to a crazy high standard on this front. I understand there are some limits to what you are able to learn as high-schoolers. But, this is all the more reason to bring philosophy into LD debate!

Framework debate is very important for me as a judge. Even in a case that doesn't use heavy philosophical warranting, your framework tells me why I should prefer any of the empirics or case-level arguments you have. I really don’t want to hear “My framework is utilitarianism, which says most good, most people. Prefer because most good is good. Onto contention one…” that would not be a fun round for me to judge, and it’s not very educational for debaters either. ***** In the complete absence of a framework/standard debate, I will flip a coin between consequentialism (heads) and deontology (tails); whichever side the coin lands on will be you and your opponents' framework for the round. Silly idea I know, but framework really is non-negotiable, and I have to frame the round through something. Please don't make me do this, just debate framework!********

Additionally on case level arguments, I think impact weighing is one of the best transferable skills LD debate has to offer; I hope you use it frequently in your rounds.

I don't care whether you debate the chosen topic, just give me a reason to divert from it.

I’m okay with spreading, but if I say “Clear!” that means I’m not okay and you need to slow down. Additionally, please be considerate to debaters with disabilities; always ask your opponent if it is okay to spread before the round. Moreover, if you happen to have a disability that needs accommodation within the debate, let me know, I will do whatever I can to create a fair space for you to debate.

One more miscellaneous note is my position on "post-rounding"- which doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore, but it was something that happened occasionally when I did debate-- and traditionally very frowned upon. For the purposes of the point I’m trying to make, I will define post-rounding as asking critical questions about my decision after I have given my RFD. I am more than okay with this and I would encourage you to do whatever is educationally required for your development as a debater and more importantly a critical thinker. I would hope you are respectful in your delivery with how you ask these questions, however, if you're upset with me I'm not going to tell you how to feel. Especially if something is just blatantly unclear to you, I want you to raise questions and objections to my thoughts if need be. I won't change my decision, but I will definitely do my best to give you an accurate depiction of my reasoning.

Jack Burchess Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 5:12 PM EDT

Pronouns: He / Him / His

SpeechDrop is the easiest for everyone in my opinion, but my email is jackburchess@gmail.com. If you start an email chain, I'd like to be on it.

Background/ Summary: I did LD and Congress for 2 years in High School and currently debate for UNL in NFA-LD. I am comfortable with most args and practices in circuit LD as long as they are explained and well-warranted. With that being said, I come from a traditional LD background, and enjoy these types of debates (eg. value, value criterion, and philosophy oriented args.) In high school, I read a lot of Util, Rawls, and Kant. At the end of the day, I will vote for most things, and keep a rigorous flow, so if you are the better debater, you'll win the round. See below for specifics.

DO NOT be afraid to ask me questions before the round (or after) about my paradigm or how I will evaluate a certain argument. I was scared to ask judges for specifics about their paradigm in HS, so I don't want you to feel like that here. I will do my best to answer your question to the best of my ability.

Tech>Truth

Circuit LD/Policy:

Speed: I can handle 9-10, if I have a speech doc, that being said, I will not flow from a speech doc, so I'll be able to tell if you're clipping cards. Don't do that. If I don't have access to speech docs, I'm comfortable at a solid 6, maybe a 7. If you are spreading and your opponent says "speed" or mentions it before round that they would prefer slower debate, and you make no effort to slow down, it is an automatic 20 on speaks, be a good person.

Policy: I am very, very comfortable in evaluating policy arguments. I will absolutely vote on a good case turn, good DA, good CP, and anything else that I'm missing.

Theory: I'll vote on theory, but you need to explain it. I'll vote on disclosure only if you prove that you couldn't reasonably predict the argument. If you read disclosure theory on the biggest stock aff of the topic, I'm probably not going to vote on it. I'll evaluate theory based on what arguments are made in round.

T: Topicality args are fun, and I like to evaluate them. It is a useful tool and if done right, I will absolutely vote on it. However, if the aff is clearly topical and you read T so the aff has to respond to it in the 1AR, making an already difficult speech, more difficult, I will be more lenient to affs who maybe drop a part of the T-shell.

K:I don't have a lot of experience with K's, but I will vote on them as long as they link and are well-warranted/explained. Assume I have no previous knowledge of your lit base (because I probably don't) and be very explicit in explaining the role of the ballot.

Phil: As I said above, I love a good philosophy debate just explain things well, and slow down on some more convoluted ideas and you'll be fine. `

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note for my Traditional LD Debaters:

I did Trad LD for all of my high school career, and it is truly where my heart lies. I went into elims at NSDA in LD my senior year, where you debate very, very traditionally. It is my opinion that High School LD is fundamentally broken, where it is truly just turning into one person policy debate. Which don't get me wrong is fun, but that is not what it's supposed to be. Lawrence Zhou (2014 NSDA Champion) has some good thoughts about this, and I encourage you to read some of his stuff.

The value criterion is a powerful tool and can be used to foster great debates with lots of clash. I do tend to believe that all values are ultimately questions of justice and morality so either should be your value, because they are ultimately the same. If your value is justice, and your opponents is morality, you can kick the value debate, because you functionally agree on the highest standard of the round.

Although I really enjoy traditional LD, I will not hesitate to vote down a traditional case that can't compete against a policy case because you have to respect the circuit that you are on, and the type of debate that you are going to run into. That being said, it's not impossible to beat a policy case with a traditional case, and if you can do it, and do it well, I will absolutely vote for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Congress:

I really liked competing in Congress in High School and I think it teaches some good skills. Here are some of my thoughts for how to get higher ranks and higher points.

Commit to the bit: Yes, you are literally LARPing as Congress people, that is part of the fun. If you want to be ranked, you need to make your judges believe that you are on the house floor in DC. There are a couple of ways to help with this, first is steadfast constituent advocacy. Fight for the needs of your constituency, even if they are imaginary. I'm okay with making up scenarios about your constituents, if it is executed well. Second is being actively engaged in the round, for the whole round e.g. asking questions.
Congress is just as much a speech event as it is a debate. Some people complain about congress because "it's not a real debate", and while these people are annoying, they do have a point. The art of public speaking, persuasion, and rhetoric are all key factors in my ranks/points. PERFORM your speech, don't just get up there and read from your laptop, with the same monotone voice. At the very least, you need to look up and make eye contact with the other competitors/judges.
Probably the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in my ranks/points is whether or not you are advancing the debate in a substantive manner. Congress kids have a bad habit of prewriting speeches before round, then just waiting to give them without engaging in clash or rebutting any points from the other reps. The only speech that should be completely pre-scripted is the Sponsorship/Authorship speech. All others SHOULD/ NEED to clash with each other. I will award representatives who move the previous question because debate has gotten stale. The most helpful tool in congress is adaptability: if someone just talked about what you wanted to, it's time to come up with a new gameplan. I will also award people who give impromptu speeches to advance debate.

The Chair: I start out each round by ranking the chair as 5th and move them up or down based on their ability to keep the chamber "fast and efficient." If you are a mid chair, you will be ranked 5th. If you are a great chair, who knows the rules of order like the back of your hand, and are arguably the most experienced in the chamber, there is no reason why you won't be ranked in the top 3. If I can tell that you are blatantly ignoring precedence and recency, I won't hesitate to not rank you. If you have never chaired, I will be lenient in my ranking just because I think everyone should learn how to do it.

Don't be afraid to be funny. There are a lot of actual congress people who make jokes on the floor, and Humor can be useful in building your ethos. I also really enjoy when congress kids make fun of politicians, as long as its not racist, homophobic etc. Things that are especially funny: Ted Cruz's Life, Mitch McConnel, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden's age, and Ron DeSanctimonious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for dedicating your weekend to this activity and good luck!!!

James Constantino Millard South High School

Last changed on Mon May 6, 2024 at 9:39 AM CDT

James Constantino Paradigm

GENERAL NOTE

I judge LD more often than anything else. I was a CX debater in the early ‘90s, but I’m self-taught in LD. I WAS NOT a great debater in high school, so I have a great deal of empathy for the struggle. Since my focus is Lincoln Douglas, I expect debaters to discuss the moral and philosophical implications of the resolution in an LD round.

ABUSE
Any type of behavior that I find abusive (more than just aggressive) will probably lose you the round. Debate is about the free exchange of ideas, so if you spread with the purpose of deception, constantly interrupt your opponent(s), or just make an attempt to erode the integrity of the event, I cannot accept your arguments.

TO GET MY BALLOT

I DO NOT want to be the one to make the decision about who wins a round; I want you to tell me why you won. This means it is your job to tell me the story of the round. Where was the clash? What were the voters? Why do your impacts outweigh theirs? Leave as little up to my discretion as possible. I will do my best not to have my own opinions and background knowledge influence who wins the round. Please meet me half way on this and make your win explicit.

JARGON

Debate jargon, like any use of field specific language, can be extremely helpful in summarizing a concept or describing how a mechanism functioned within a round. But you MUST be able to explain, in almost monosyllabic terms, exactly what you mean when you use the jargon. Debate cannot be allowed to be exclusionary based on one competitor’s experience with specific vocabulary and their opponent’s unfamiliarity. You should be able to explain any concept you utilize in a round to your opponent and to a lay judge.

FRAMEWORK AND/OR DEFINITION DEBATE
If you intend to provide framework and/or definitions for the round, I still need to see warrants. Don't merely tell me how to view or evaluate the debate; explain why I ought to do so in your preferred manner. Also, if there are competing frameworks or definitions at play, I need to see work on weighing out why I ought to prefer one side's interpretation over the other. If I don't have reasons/warrants on which to prefer, I'll make the choice for myself, and as I just explained, I don’t want to do that.

SPEED
I can handle moderate speed. I can follow a quickly read and enunciated speech, but if you slurring your words together, hyperventilating, or just being unclear, I will call “clear” twice: once to get you to adjust and a second time to remind you. After that, I will cease to flow and your opponent(s) is no longer responsible to address your incoherent arguments.

REBUTTALS
It is a debater’s obligation to address both sides of the flow in rebuttal speeches. A debater that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as arguments that go unaddressed are essentially conceded. A team that ignores this bit of adaptation should expect to see speaker points that reflect a performance that I see as half-complete.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I don't need line-by-line review of the round in this speech. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point. In other words, crystalize the ideas that were essential to the round, juxtaposing your positions with your opponent’s. As stated above, YOU should be the one to tell me the main clash of the round and why you won.

SPEAKER POINTS
My scale is essentially as follows:

· 30 – Perfection/deeply impressive.

· 29 - Near perfect speaking/execution/argumentation/strategy

· 28 - Good on pretty much all fronts

· 27 - Average

· 26-25 - Below average in one or more ways

· 24 or fewer - Deeply problematic in one or more ways, likely offensive in nature/something warranting an apology to one or more people

For Congressional Debate:

· 6—Near perfect speech. The arguments are clear, unique, persuasive, and well-delivered with a sense of style and confidence.

· 5—Excellent speech. Arguments are clear, unique, and persuasive.

· 4—Solid speech. Lacking in evidence or uniqueness (rehash) or delivery, but not more than one component.

· 3—Average speech. There were issues in clarity, persuasiveness, or delivery. Speech contained some rehash or did not demonstrably move the debate forward.

· 2-1—Major issues. The speech was purposefully offensive or was bad for education.

Quinn Constantino Millard South High School

Dante Dyches-Chandler Lincoln East High School

Azza Elhaj Hire None

Delta Fajardo Hastings

Last changed on Mon May 13, 2024 at 5:10 PM CDT

I coach Congress, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum. This is my 21st year coaching. My judging experience includes local tournaments, State, and NSDA qualifiers, as well as prelim all the way to finals rounds at NSDA Nationals in all three categories. In 2019, I had the honor of judging the two LD finalists in their Quarter/Semi-finals rounds. In 2020 and 2023, I judged the finals session in Congress Senate and House. Up until a few years ago, I would have said that I am a "traditional" judge. However, I have opened up to a lot of things because the times are changing. That said, there are some things that you need to know.

- Speech Drop / Case Sharing -

I know what the "norm" is, and this is going to take a lot of getting used to for me. For now, here is where I am at. Do not share cases with me online. My fear, and it is a condition I have, that if I stare too much at my laptop and read, I will zone out and not realize I have stopped listening. My focus is completely taken away, and that is a disservice to you. So, I refuse to do things electronically outside of balloting. If you feel the need to give me your case, it must be on paper, but I will not read it unless there really is something I question about the validity of your evidence. Also, do not expect that by giving me your case that it is your way of telling me that this is everything your opponent must address. This is also not me condoning speeding. I will continue to flow what I hear and base decisions on that flow. See the rest of my paradigm for more related information.

- Progressive cases -

Critical Affs: I was taught that the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true. This is engrained in me. I struggle with things like Critical Affs for a couple reasons...1) The methodology with which people perform is one that I cannot grasp. I have tried to understand format, but in many cases, I have seen people use this style to confuse their opponents only to end up confusing me, too. 2) To ignore what the Affirmative is supposed to fundamentally be about denotes a certain amount of selfishness and avoidance of issues that are just as valid and important to debate. Without an Affirmative that does its burden, it seems simple to me to have the Negative just come back and say that the Affirmative technically negates the resolution, too, which is technically true. The Affirmative has literally given up their ground on the topic at hand. The Affirmative may have very legitimate reasons to change the topic, but that doesn't change the fact that they vacated the space that was held by the Affirmative, which means the Negative can move in.

Kritiks on the Negative: This is something I have opened up to as I have furthered my education. The Negative needs to negate the resolution and/or what the Affirmative advocates about the resolution. It is possible to look at a resolution and disagree with it based on the wording of it. In Congress, students debate the wording of the legislation and explain that they negate because of specific things the legislation states. I can get behind that and understand that. HOWEVER, being too complex is going to frustrate me, which I will explain later.

Now, what happens when I have come upon situations where both sides are running some really progressive cases? What do I do then? If I don't understand you, I won't vote for you. Beyond that, since I am not as familiar with these styles, you risk me missing something, and so accept the fact that I will be voting with the side that makes sense to me the most.

Policy style used in other debate types -

This is becoming difficult for me since so much has bled into LD/PF/CON. There is terminology I am starting to understand, certain case structures I am starting to understand, but having watched Policy rounds from time to time...I still don't understand it, and I have gone to camps and had a few policy teams trained by a policy coach years ago. It's still too complicated for me, though, and so I still say if you try to do this in LD/PF rounds, you risk losing my ballot. Personally, I want Policy to stay in Policy. My debaters are starting to learn things from their rounds, though, and I judge rounds, so I feel like I am slowly understanding, but deep down, I just don't want the complexity of Policy anywhere else besides in Policy. So, what happens if both decide to be Policyesque? Again, whichever side I understand better, is the side that wins.

Theory -

This is hit or miss on me. If the theory is logical and deals with the topic, I am interested in it. If it is meant to take a detour away from the topic, then I am not. I also will not include theories that aren't applicable. For example, I had a debater say that disclosure was necessary for small schools that do not have resources. The debater who said it was not from a small school, and they had plenty of resources, and I know because I coach a small school, and I knew the school the debater was from. Another debater said we shouldn't debate the topic because it was triggering and was emotionally affecting them. The opponent simply said that they knew what the topic was going to be and obviously prepared cases for this tournament as well as had to be registered. So, if you run theory, just know that you are now including me and my views of the theory in on this debate, and now I get to choose whether I buy into it or not rather than remaining objective between you and the opponent. And if your theory doesn't hold up in my mind, that will not be a determining factor when I vote.

- Speed -

Don't do it. I can't follow it. I can't write fast enough, and I can't digest the information well enough before you have moved on to something else. This is especially not helpful if you try to do cases that are overly complex. I also have a fundamental philosophy against it. No where in any form of political arena is wicked fast speed acceptable. And given that most of you will never actually go into the political field, but rather get a typical business/medical/educational kind of job, I can't imagine you being praised for your speed talking there either. You speeding is telling me that you want to cheat your way into winning because you hope your opponent can't keep up with you or understand you or be able to cover the massive amount of things you spread. To me, you are not trying to debate. You are trying to find a way not to debate. Now, what happens if both of you just ignore me and speed anyway? Yet again, the person I understand the most wins, and both of you risk me missing some warrant, link, or impact that you clearly think makes you win the round, but I didn't catch it. Your speaker points will drop anywhere between 1 to 3 points as well.

- Ideal vs. Pragmatic -

I pride myself on being a logical realist, but I am not against the ideal. In fact, by not working towards the ideal, we don't grow. I will use No Child Left Behind as my example. Very illogical! Very damaging on so many levels. However, when it was in practice, I did see the value of it. It bothered me when people would say it is impossible to get 100% children passing. I kept thinking, well why wouldn't you at least try? As lofty a goal it was, the government was not wrong in wanting our compass pointed in that direction. Their methods left something to be desired, but the concept was good. So, what does this mean here? Don't think that I will automatically vote for you because you present the case pragmatically. On the reverse, do not be so absurd and so far out in left field with ideals that I'm forced to say, "There is absolutely no way I can imagine this ever happening." Therefore, telling me something like not getting rid of hand guns will lead to weapons proliferation and mass destruction is probably not going to get you my vote. Telling me that getting rid of hand guns is a step in the right direction, on the other hand, is believable and worth considering even if it doesn't come to full fruition.

- Congress -

Your scores/nominations will be based on the following... 1) An organized and well-structured case with significant/meaningful cited evidence is critical, BUT 2) your presentation of that information is also critical. As public officials, you are supposed to be an advocate for your constituents, so sound professional and passionate rather than an indifferent newscaster just reporting the facts. 3) I like strong, unique arguments that really make me sit back and think. I like it when you look at all kinds of angles on an issue. 4) I like you giving me evidence and analysis telling me why I should care. 5) And, of course, you need to refute the representatives who go before you. It wouldn't be a debate if you didn't do that. Therefore, canned speeches are not the best way to go with me. I get that you have specific information you want to relay, but you can tailor information to what other debaters say. Being able to adapt and talk extemporaneously is a key characteristic of this style of debate. 6) This also plays into how you answer questions. Answering questions well proves you didn't just write a good case...you can talk beyond that case - you really have a deeper knowledge of the topic.

- Lincoln Douglas -

Generally, I do V/C debate, but I have opened up to the concept of "Standard" and "RoB". I am beginning to see that "Standard" is just another way of saying value or criterion, and "RoB" is another way of saying criterion. I do struggle with the format of the cases, but I follow fairly well. Either way, this is the style where philosophy is supposed to be at the core. See "Ideal vs. Pragmatic" above. Ultimately, though, I should see a clear weighing mechanism. More importantly, though, LD is about the way life "ought" be. There are philosophical schools of thought on how we should live life that clash (ex. individualism vs. communitarianism) So, basically, you should be proving to me that this philosopher/psychologist's prescription for life is the best way to go. Evidence (defined as the facts to support the advocacy of a philosophy) should be used to help solidify that position. Ultimately, though, you need to answer my question: Why is living life this way the best idea? For example, in the violent revolution topic, the question that needs to be answered is...why is the philosophy that supports violent revolution the way we need to live? Throwing a bunch of information at me about how violent revolution causes so much death, is meaningless to me because I could argue from the angle that sometimes it takes that kind of extreme to make change happen. In fact, there is a whole study on how it takes causing conflict to create actual change. If all you do is throw examples at your opponent, then all your opponent has to do is throw examples back at you...like the American Revolution. Obviously, our violent revolution turned out great for us. So, again, you have to look deeper in LD. While we won the revolution, that doesn't mean that is how we "ought" to have done it. The impact of having that violent MENTALITY is really where the debate lies if you take that angle. So, evidence of events can only take you so far. You need to have philosophical/psychological evidence to rationalize it. In terms of the round, ultimately if there isn't a value/criterion to judge on, it comes down to reasoning and significant/meaningful impacts that play out in your voters.

- Public Forum -

Your arguments and evidence should lean on ultimately explaining to me why I should care with significant/meaningful impacts. However, I should not be getting outlandish impacts like the 1% extinction. One way or another, this world will come to an end. On average, the typical span of a species is 1 million years, so banking on something like that is wasted on me....and so are apocalypses. I like arguments that make sense and are realistic. Telling me something will cause WWIII just does not seem realistic unless you can somehow prove it will actually happen, but even then, it is such a huge hypothetical. Hypotheticals are not something I really get into. Final Focus should really be able to paint a very clear picture to me what the world will be like if I vote one way or the other. As for being a team debate, I should see a good balance between partners. Speaker points can be affected when one partner clearly surpasses the other partner's participation in the debate.

Will Henley Hastings

Joel Henson Lincoln Southeast High School

Lily Holmes Millard West High School None

SCOTT KOSLOW Marian

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 2:07 AM UTC

Scott Koslow (KAWS-low) he/they

When I judge, I will not be on social media or other websites. I will give you my full attention.

Include me on the email chain: SAKoslow@gmail.com

I competed in college policy debate for 5 years and coached/judged it for an additional 4 years. I've also competed in high school LD and judge high school debate in my free time. Nearly everything below constitutes warnings about my predispositions. I will do my best to default to the standards you set up in round, and I'll listen to almost anything (short of hate speech) and have voted for positions/strategies that are the polar opposite of those preferences. You're always better off reading the type of argument you're best at rather than "adapting" by reading something you're unfamiliar with.

Below I'll talk about LD, Policy, and college policy paradigms. This is already too long, so I'll write it such that you can ignore the other sections of my paradigm.

General

My biggest bias is for depth over breadth. I prefer substantive explanation to tricks or a large number of technical arguments, so I hope you develop a few arguments well rather than many arguments poorly. If an argument is 15 second in the NC, I don't expect or require the 1AR to take more than 5-10 seconds to answer it (the same goes for each speech by both sides--a 10 second "trick" at the end of the 1AC warrants almost no answer, etc.). This does not quite mean "truth over tech"--it's not my role to evaluate the truth of what you say, and debating weird or even false arguments can be educational. Instead, I'd say "communication over tech"--give me a thorough explanation of the world or ideas you're advocating and spend a lot of time weighing it against the other side's world/position/ideas.

Please avoid any violent, offensive, or rude actions in the round. In policy, I would expect the other team to make this an in-round argument and tell me why it warrants a ballot. In LD, you don't have the time to do this unless you go all in on it early in the debate. So it will certainly effect your speaker points and in extreme cases I will intervene to vote against it. Extreme cases include explicit hate speech, implied or explicit threats, or mocking/demeaning an inexperienced debater.

Rankings (1 best--5 worst)

Critiques--2

Philosophy--1

Theory/Topicality--3

Tricks--3

Policy arguments ("LARP")--4

Critiques

These were the arguments I read almost exclusively in college policy debate, but LD is not policy. You have much less time and fewer speeches. So complicated critiques often work poorly. That said, these are where I have the most fun. Just know I expect a high level of explanation, and you should work to make your arguments as specific to the topic/affirmative as possible. Depending on the argument, I may be familiar with the literature, and I will hold you to a high standard to explain that literature beyond what I expect from more straight-forward positions.

Philosophy

I find LD best suited to these types of debate and I enjoy them. Every debate, across all styles and events, needs to set up the standards I should use to weigh the round, and that's what folks are worst at in other types of debate. In philosophy debates, this is baked into the structure. Give me some good old-fashioned act utility vs. rule utility debates, or tell me why protecting rights comes before anything else. Then, impact to that standard. Win your standard and you'll probably win the debate.

Your value is just an internal link to your standard/criterion. The standard is the weighing mechanism that I'll use and is the most important thing in these debates.

Try to extend impacts to your opponent's standard as well.

Theory/T/Framework

This (and LARPing) is where I'm an old policy curmudgeon. I love a good topicality debate, but I don't see them much in LD. A good topicality (or theory) debate must abide by that "communication over tech" preference. You need a clear interpretation (supported by evidence in T debates) where you slow down so I can flow every word; a clear violation; standards that are explained; and voters where you explain why those voters should come before anything else in the round.

"Standard: Breadth over depth" is not an argument. "Voter for education and fairness" is not an argument. "Ground outweighs limits" is not an argument. You need warrants for these claims in the AC/NC.

If you plan to go for these arguments, you should devote a significant amount of time to them in every speech. If you spend 30 seconds on T in your NR, the 2AR can likely get away with saying "They have not extended a full argument here; they have not extended evidence for their interpretation and have no warrant for limits" or "They have no voter that outweighs our standard" or something like that.

I prefer T to framework against critical affirmatives.

Check out these sections of my policy paradigm for more details.

Tricks

I often see these as 5 second throw-away arguments, which are only introduced in the hopes they'll be dropped. If that's the case, they won't overcome my threshold that there must be a complete argument even in the first speech they're introduced. If you go from 5 seconds in the AC to 1 minute in the 1AR, I'm going to give the NR a lot of leeway cross-applying arguments here. Sometimes I vote for them, but I'm not happy about it.

*BUT* "trick" arguments sometimes prove unique and interesting ways to approach debate. Arguments like "the affirmative must prove the resolution universally true" or something like that can be a lot of fun if you devote the time needed. And I've waited years to see someone go for something really tricky like an inherency bomb. If you devote the time needed, these debates rock.

Policy/LARP

I'm likely to be a policy curmudgeon, yelling "Hey, kids, get off my lawn!" in these debates. My background is primarily in policy debate, and I'll hold you to the standards I apply in policy debates where teams have much more time and more speeches. I often find LARP arguments underdeveloped or missing necessary pieces.

If your opponent agrees to the generic "maximize utility" standard then I'll adopt that, but teams can do very well challenging that standard. There are hundreds of different types of utilitarianism and even more types of consequentialism. They won't have to push very hard to demonstrate why "consequentialism" is, in and of itself, a meaningless standard. Justify and tell me, for example, "act utility, prioritizing existential threats" and you'll be significantly more likely to win.

Look at my policy paradigm for comments on specific types of arguments.

Speed

My background is college policy, so I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you, I won't say "clear" and I won't flow you. If I don't flow it, then it doesn't count.

If you're slow but struggle to enunciate, I've been there. I'll be sympathetic and do my best to get down everything I can.

You MUST slow down on values, criteria, interpretations, CP texts, and complex theory arguments. I want to get every word, because wording is often important.

Online Debate

Is great; it allows a lot of people to compete who wouldn't otherwise be able to.

But it also comes with problems. It can be much more difficult to understand you, so you should do extra work to enunciate clearly. And when there are tech issues, I'll do my best to help you, but it's a tournament on a schedule so we can't pause the round for 20 minutes while you work out tech issues. Make sure you test everything before hand and if possible have a backup available. If we can't fix it, and you're unable to debate, that typically means a loss (unless the tournament offers specific rules for resolving the situation).

Policy

General

My main bias is toward substantive explanation and weighing over tech. and number of arguments. You should try and describe the world of the plan/aff advocacy/perm/whatever compared to the status quo/alternative/CP. Or, for T and Framework debates, carefully delineate what cases are allowed under each teams's interpretation. Whatever the position, your comparison of the affirmative and negative worlds should frame all your arguments on that flow. Within that frame, I'm fine with any type of argument you'd like to run.

My baseline is presumption goes negative, the negative can do whatever they'd like, and the affirmative can *probably* do whatever they like. You may subject any of those beliefs to debate.

When I debated, I ran critical arguments almost exclusively, both aff and neg, and on the negative I usually read 1 off-case position. However, as a judge I think that has given me a higher standard for critiques and I fear I have an automatic (and perhaps unfair) bias against a lot of critique debates because my standards are so high. I've also acquired a strong appreciation for T debates. So my own debating does not mean you should always go for the K in front of me. But depending on the argument I am likely to be familiar with the literature if you do.

If you do something offensive, it will affect your speaker points. If your opponent does something offensive, make an argument about it. I'll vote on it, but you need to win: 1. an interpretation of what behavior should and shouldn't be allowed, 2. they violated that interpretation, 3. such behavior is harmful, and 4. it's bad enough to warrant the ballot. Such arguments should be structured like framework or a critique and require a significant time investment (at least 1-2 minutes).

Speaker points

27 - the lowest I'll go unless you do something offensive; 27.5 - average; 28 - you should be breaking at this tournament; 28.5 - you should be getting a speaker award; 29-29.5 - you should be top speaker at the tournament; 30 - the best speech I've ever heard. I'll readjust that scale if I find it differs from the community norm.

Framework

I prefer topicality to framework debates.

Framework debates against critical affirmatives usually come down to whether there's a topical version of the aff and whether it can solve the affirmative's offense.

"Fairness" is not a terminal impact. If you go for theory, I suggest you focus on education or you must explain why fairness is a sufficient reason to vote. And if your impact is that everyone will quit debate if X unfair behavior is allowed, that impact is demonstrably untrue.

I'm willing to vote on "framework is bad," in fact that's how I typically answered framework, but the affirmative will be very well served by a counter-interpretation.

Topicality

The affirmative should have a strong relationship to the topic, but that doesn't have to be a traditional plan.

Your interpretation matters a lot. You should be reading evidence for the interpretation dealing with legal usage in the particular context of the topic. Telling me, for example, how Canadian dairy unions define the term "substantially" tells me nothing about the topic.

I prefer limits to ground as a standard. Every position will give the negative ground, but that's irrelevant if it's not predictable ground (if there aren't predictable limits on ground).

Competing interpretations *does* lead to a race to the bottom and is probably bad, but I don't know of a better alternative to competing interpretations.

See my comments on framework.

DAs

You can win with terminal defense, but their evidence better be terrible.

I still struggle with politics (the DA, not the sphere of life; well, also the sphere of life). If you go for this argument, I'll likely require a greater level of explanation than normal.

Case Debate

Is great.

CPs

The negative should usually run at least one.

They compete through net benefits.

Conditionality

I assume negative positions are conditional until told otherwise.

Dispositionality is typically meaningless. Most often, it means "We can kick the position whenever we want, but we don't link to your Condo Bad blocks." You should not go for dispo as an answer to "conditionality bad" in front of me.

More than 3 conditional negative advocacies are usually too much to develop each sufficiently by my standards, and more than 2 is difficult. If the negative reads 5 or more off, the affirmative can sometimes say "they haven't made a complete argument on this flow" and if true that's sufficient to defeat the (non)argument.

The last negative speech should generally pick one advocacy or position to go all-in on.

I like the aff theory interpretation: "The negative gets 2 conditional advocacies (plus the status quo) and must pick one advocacy in the last rebuttal."

Critiques

These are the arguments I usually went for. But if you're arguing for a complex position, that requires a high level of explanation.

A critique is not the same as a DA with a weird CP or utopian fiat. They usually adopt a different understanding of the world and should be approached as such.

Your links should be as specific as possible.

You should explain specific scenarios for your impacts, even if this is just your own analysis. Don't tell me capitalism will destroy the world. Explain how it inflects and turns the affirmative's scenarios (on top of how your authors claim it will destroy the world).

"Perm: do both" is not an argument. If you plan to advocate the perm, it should be a substantive argument beginning in the first speech you introduce it.

Weighing should be done not just on impacts but also on the strength of the links. The negative will usually win a risk of a link, but the affirmative should mitigate the magnitude of that link and a link doesn't automatically mean you get the full weight of your impacts.

Paperless debate

Prep time ends when the speech document is sent.

I will not be reading through your speech docs. during your speeches. The burden remains on you to use paperless debate efficiently and to orally and clearly communicate your ideas.

Role of the Ballot

This argument is usually unjustified and self-serving. You need a strong reason why I should give up my standards of debate and adopt yours.

Olio

Debate is not (just) a laboratory for testing ideas, a game for developing future skills, or a big tent where all ideas should be included. What happens in rounds can be intrinsically meaningful.

Go as fast as you'd like, as long as you're clear. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. You should usually slow down on dense debate theory, CP texts, alts, perms, and interpretations so I can flow everything.

I try not to call for cards unless the content or authority of those cards is called into question. I usually won't read more than 4 or 5 cards after a debate, though some debates require I read much more.

I flow everything straight down on a laptop in a Microsoft Word document. If both teams agree I should adopt a line-by-line flow, I will do so but I'll also get less down because it takes me time to line everything up.

College Policy

I'm going to limn Bill Shanahan--the disgraced former coach at Fort Hays--and William Spanos:

A/Part

Ben Lampman Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:10 AM EDT

Yes I do want the speech doc. ben.r.lampman@gmail.com

I debated LD 4 years at Millard North and saw a fair amount of both nat circuit and traditional rounds. I'm a first year out.

Im probably somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, as much as I love progressive debate, sometimes i'm baby, so just explain everything clearly and try to spread clearly pretty please.

Pre-Round Etiquette -

If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.
Disclosure is encouraged, but not required. If it's nat circ disclose, if it's trad I don't care.
Pronouns! Tell me them! (Mine are he/him/his !)

Speed:

If I have a speech doc, i'm way more lenient, but I can flow a decent amount of spreading, just don't like, break the sound barrier or anything. Also please don't use speed as a weapon. I will tank your speaks.

How to get my ballot:

I normally will vote on anything, but I probably will gut check theory if I'm asked. If it isn't discussed in round, it wont come into the RFD. The arguments I prefer are: Larp>K's>Phil>Theory>Tricks

Just run what you like and have fun! I will vote on memey and fun arguments if you give me a reason to vote (And probably give pretty high speaks if the antics are appreciated)

On the flipside, it irks me to no end when debaters read memey arguments just to troll. If you don't actually prove why you have better access to the ballot than your opponent, you lose. Simple as.

(Also as a caveat: If the aff reads something that's like extremely serious or emotional, please do not meme it really ruins the brand and i will look like this >:-o)

Literally just clearly explain your args within the context of the round and why it should win the ballot. Make me do as little work as possible and we'll be gucci

Comment on Theory: This was the arg I had the least amount of experience with. I'm like still okay with evaluating the args but I need 1) a significant decrease in speed 2) articulation, enunciation, clarity and 3) explicit weighing to feel comfortable voting on it -> run at your own risk bc i'm telling you, you will probably Not be happy w my decision!!! Also, on disclosure theory, I'm incredibly uncomfortable evaluating violations when they're in the form of hearsay and screenshots and especially when I'm not in the room.

Also I will NOT vote on:

-Racism

-Homophobia

-Transphobia

-Sexism

-Literally anything on the same grain. Be a good person please please please please please it isn't that hard

Speaks

Im normally pretty generous on speaks, but a few pro gamer tricks:

Things that bolster speaks:

-Explaining arguments well enough that its clear that you know them inside and out

-Not being an a**hole

-Being nice to novices should you hit them

-Having a unique case

-Being able to name 30 distinct pokemon

-Not horsing around

Ways to LOSE speaks

-Being an a**hole

-Being problematic

-Not caring about novices

-Reading a position that you very obviously do not know

-Just be nice and u wont lose any

-Admitting that you unironically enjoy skim milk

Misc:

Ask me for any other questions because I definitely didn't cover it all

And finally, as a great person once said:

Be rootin

Be tootin

By god be shootin.

But most importantly

Be kind.

Ian Matuszeski Millard North High School

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 4:16 AM UTC

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

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

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

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

My Debate background:

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

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

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Larp- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to:

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility affirms, Presumption negates.

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

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

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

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

Event Specific:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant McKeever Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 11:41 AM CDT

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

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

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

Jacob Moore Papillion-La Vista High School

Jesse Nguyen Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 11:28 AM EDT

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.

Richard Nguyen Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 9:51 AM CDT

Don't be an ass, Don't be racist/sexist/istist, Use the Pronouns, Give Trigger Warnings, etc. etc.

richardhn2006@gmail.com - for the speech doc but speechdrop.net works

Hello I'm Richard I've debated for 3 years in highschool LD. I've done traditional and progressive debate throughout those 3 years and feel comfortable evaluating either.

Silver Talon

TLDR - I lean towards who is winning the flow the most in my decision. Whatever framing/ROTB/whatever is most convincing will filter what impacts I look towards on the flow. Whichever impacts are best warranted/applied/weighed under the FW will be the ones that likely win the round. Lastly, giving succinct crystallization in your last speech, like literally starting the speech off with, " We win because _____, ______, and ______ here's why," is very persuasive to me. Telling me where you want me to focus and giving clear judge instruction is easier for me to evaluate than jumping directly into the flow. If u do this and your opponent doesn't, then u likely gucci. This is still to say that your speaking style, body language, passion, and overall belief in what you're saying ~~(or shouting),~~ are still very important in influencing my decision.

LD************************* Stuff

Arguments I feel comfortable evaluating

Traditional/Stock arguments - Util, Structural Violence,

Ks - run of the mill Cap Ks, MMM, Set Col, Orientalism, Nietzsche, Biopower. It's more convincing if the alt is properly explained, cause if I don't know what the neg do? Then that's a bruh moment and I have no idea what I'd be voting on.

KAffs - They're pretty cool. It's more convincing to me if there's reasons to reject the topic and arguments about why the KAFF is necessary and would have material spillover/is on net preferable to normal fiat debate.

TFW - It's pretty cool. Maybe not as cool as a KAff. It's more convincing if the arguments are offensive and speak in the benefit of those running KAffs. For example, appealing to reasons for why procedural fairness can be beneficial for anti-whatever movements are more convincing to me than saying you can't do the aff cause debate needs fairness.

Phil - Kant, Rawls, Butler, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes. It's more convincing if you don't rely on just the case, cards, or evidence of the framing to win. Understanding the FW well and more importantly being able to explain it to me well is awesome sauce.

Policy - DAs, Advantages, Advantage CPs, Plan Texts, Most Impact Turns

Theory - Disclosure, Speed Theory, most of it is fine

Ehh?

High Theory Ks - Baudrillard, Bataille, Muñoz, etc.

CPs - Everything that's not an advantage CP

Theory - CP Theory, Call out Theory,

Arguments that I don't like

Tricks - 1-2 can be funny, ---------------- don't make the joke too long

Frivolous Theory - 1 funny shell can be funny, but ^^^^^^^^

If I haven't mentioned a specific argument/lit base, please ask

Anything is fine as long as the explanation is good enough, but I either will not or can not do that explanation work for you (even with lit I understand).

Truth/Tech

Tech>Truth? I guess - I evaluate everything said, if something isn't extended then I likely cannot vote off of it. If my personal opinion differs from what's said, unless you did something that makes me look like >:( , then I'll try my best to not let my personal opinion affect how I vote. However, I do think there are some things that are obviously true or obviously false to most people. Some things like climate change is bad, nuclear war is bad, and that the universe is likely not a hologram. I also tend to believe that most debaters running these arguments also do not believe in them and that's fine. Therefore, I do have a lower threshold for debaters answering these types of arguments. If a debater is running something that is well warranted both in and out of round, clearly passionate and believes in their argument and can explain it well, then there is a higher threshold for answering those arguments. For example, if a tricks debater has one unanswered blippy trick that gives some dumb argument about why they autowin and is in no way addressed/looked at/or thought about then I guess I give them the autowin. But if you answer that trick with like literally anything then I'm probably not gonna buy the autowin.

Speed

Speed - is fine - clarity is necessary. If 1 = my first novice round and 10 = policy TOC finals, I'm comfortable evaluating 7/10 on speed.

Trayson O'Brien Lincoln East High School

Carly Persell Millard North High School

Suzanne Polzkill Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sat November 4, 2023 at 5:09 AM EDT

Pronouns: any

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Southwest and Parliamentary at American University, and have experience judging LD, PF, and Parli. Professionally, I’ve worked most recently as a chemist and environmental health scientist.

GENERAL NOTES

I debated and now coach/judge debate because I truly enjoy the activity and think it provides excellent educational opportunities for students with a variety of interests and backgrounds. This isn’t my space but yours; please run whatever arguments that interest you and make you comfortable. The following notes are based on my aptitudes as a judge, but I don’t ‘dislike’ any forms of argumentation that are well warranted, clearly explained, and presented effectively.

Note on Trigger Warnings

A trigger warning is a verbal warning prior to the presentation of material that could be psychologically damaging (or triggering) to individuals who have experienced trauma. This warning allows individuals who may potentially be triggered to prepare themselves so they can actively participate in the debate. I believe that debate should be a safe and understanding place for all participants and believe that trigger warnings must be included by any debater who chooses to include graphic material of any kind, including but not limited to detailed descriptions of: violence based on gender, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Refusing to provide TWs for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points (see scale below).

SPEED
I’m fine with speed as long as it’s not mutually exclusive with clarity. I will not yell “clear” but an observant debater will find that I’ve stopped flowing and am looking up at them with a face of terror and/or confusion if I’m unable to understand their spread. If these non-verbal cues are ignored, the debater is responsible for any arguments I was unable to flow, which will not be weighed in subsequent speeches.

STANDARDS
I was never a big standards debater, so if your standards can be easily collapsed to a central weighing mechanism, please do so. If not, standards debate must be centered on the unique qualities of the standards themselves rather than a debater’s ability to meet the established standard (‘I achieve best’). Those are case arguments. Apply them to the case. I will choose the standard that is best warranted and explained as an appropriate mechanism to evaluate the impacts of the round.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
If you are running theory as a time suck, and it is obvious to everybody in the room (it probably is), I’m going to be annoyed at you and I probably won’t vote on it. However, I will vote theory/topicality if argued well for legitimate reasons. These are arguments I’m much less familiar with, so if you choose to make them it would be wise to take your time explaining the violations and implications clearly.

KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE
If you’re interested in a critical argument, 100% go for it. Make sure all the components are clearly present and explained. A clear role of the ballot is definitely important. Kritiks and performance debates are great because they usually allow for a greater diversity of arguments, but I also expect some level of authenticity with your advocacy. Do not spread a narrative. Do not drop a narrative in the 1AR. If you are using another person’s lived experience in a competitive atmosphere it is expected that you are respectful of that experience.

SPEAKER POINTS

The scale should help you interpret how I evaluate speaks:

Perfect

Debater displays clear understanding of the topic and in-round arguments, case is presented not merely effectively but exceptionally. Way to go, super star!

Excellent

Debater effectively presents a well-developed case, fully utilizing time in speeches and cross examination. Speeches are well-organized and any issues in clarity are minor.

Good

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally well-developed. Debater fully utilizes their time and speeches are well-organized, though there may be some issues with clarity.

Average

Debater presents a case with no obvious contradictions and arguments are generally developed sufficiently. Debater doesn’t fully utilize their allocated time. Speeches are generally signposted and easy to follow, though there may be some issues with clarity and organization.

Below Average

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions or poorly developed arguments, disorganization is distracting, and speech style/speed is difficult to understand. Cross examination is used for clarification questions only.

Poor

Debater presents a case that contains obvious contradictions and poorly developed arguments, and is frequently difficult to understand due to speaking style/speed. Speeches are severely under time.

24 and below

Offensive

Debater is blatantly rude/disrespectful in or after round, uses graphic depictions of violence without utilizing TWs. Being a poor orator is not alone enough to receive a score below a 25.

NOTE: Points will be deducted, regardless of in-round performance, for debaters who argue with a decision post-round or pack up their belongings before the round and oral critique are concluded. This is disrespectful to your judge, your opponent, and the team you represent.

Feel free to ask any specific questions regarding my paradigm before the round!

Arjun Rishi Millard North High School

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 5:59 AM CDT

Hi my name is Arjun(they/them)

-Millard North '23; UNL '27

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

-LD/Policy

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

-I have competed in all events tho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actual paradigm:

-Important things are bolded.

-Tech > Truth

-Scroll down to know debate opinions

Random thoughts, DOs and DON'Ts:

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

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

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

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

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

A few words of advice before the round:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I will evaluate the debate:

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

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

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

-Util

-No RVI

-Competing Interps

-P&P NEG

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

Event Specific:

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

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

1] Framework:

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

[Note for TRAD]:

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

2] Impact Calc:

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

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

3]Judge instruction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Presumption

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

-Theory & trix:

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

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

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

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

Ks:

Sure.

Make sure to have a ROTB, alt etc

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

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

Not a fan of PIKs [Unless creative]

Specific links > Generic links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4: Weird Ks,

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

If debated evenly i think condo justifies a perfcon

-K Affs and Tfwk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent the 2AR from pulling an is/ought fallacy

-Random thoughts on authors and other phil stuff:

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

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

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

-LARP/Policy Stuff

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

CP/DA:

Starting with CP section:

-Yes! love them.

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

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

-Not a fan of Delay.

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

-Must have a NB.

Thoughts on competition:

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

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

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

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

Condo:

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

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

DA:

-Love 'em.

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

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

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

T/Topicality:

-Love to see it.

-Nebel/Subsets sucks.

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

-No RVIs on T.

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

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

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

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

good luck.

Andrew Ruchti Omaha Central HS

Zein Saleh Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:22 PM EDT

Pronouns: He/him/his

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

Quick Prefs:

K- 1

T/Theory/Policy- 2

Phil- 2/3

Tricks- Strike

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

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

Tech > Truth

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

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

Disclosure is good. I will vote on disclosure theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am fairly convinced by speaking for others arguments.

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

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

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

Diamond Schulz Norfolk High School

Britton Teply Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Thu May 30, 2024 at 11:08 AM CDT

Pronouns: she/they

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

(speech drop is fine too)

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

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

—TLDR—

tech>>>truth

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

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

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

——EXPERIENCE——

LD at Lincoln Southwest HS (2019-2023)

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

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

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

Here’s my current NFA wiki:

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

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest HS (2023-Present)

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

—PREF SHEET—

K - 1

Performance - 1

LARP/Policy/DAs/CPs- 1

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - strike

—SPEAKS—

(from Zach Thornhill's paradigm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—— LD ——

Speed:

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

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

Theory/Topicality:

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

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

DA’s/CP’s/PIC’s:

Good with em.

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

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

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

Kritikal stuff:

Good with em, ran em a lot.

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

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

***note for performance stuff:

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

Phil:

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

—— POLICY ——

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

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

—— PF ——

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

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

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

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

——————

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

Victor Thoms Lincoln North Star

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

pronouns: any | email: victorthoms037@gmail.com

TL;DR

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

Theory - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2

Phil - 3

Trad - 3

Tricks - 4

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

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

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

The not TL;DR part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halli Tripe Marian

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:16 AM CDT

How I determine rounds:

- I am very flow-centric. I will only vote on arguments that make it into the last rebuttals.

- I go mostly w/ an offense-defense paradigm. Offensive args are assigned more weight than defensive args.

General preferences:

- Don't go too fast on non-carded arguments in your FW. I need pen time.

- Speed is fine, as long as you're clear.

- Don't steal prep time. I will start CX right after the speech ends. There is no "time out" period after speeches and before CX.

- Sign post where you are. Be organized.

- MAKE CHOICES. Don't extend every argument you made. Pick and choose. Debate is about strategy.

- Don't sign-post by author. I'll be honest, I am flowing your arguments, NOT your authors. If you say "off their Smith card..." I don't know what you're talking about.

- I will likely not vote on disclosure theory, as I believe that things that happen before/after the round are not in my jurisdiction. My jurisdiction as a judge starts with the 1AC and ends after the last speech.

Argument preferences:

- Really, I don't care. You can do whatever style you prefer.

Background in debate: I debated policy for four years in high school, and I debated NDT/CEDA policy for four years in college. I have coached all events at this point.

LD-specific stuff:

- I don't care whether you have a traditional value/criterion case, or a policy-esque or kritik case. You do you.

- I really don't prefer cases that are 95% framework and 5% topical substance. It's not that I won't vote for these types of cases, but I can't say that I like them.

- I do think you need to be "topical" in the sense that you are talking about the topic. There are lots of ways to talk about the topic, but you should be advocating for something that agrees w/ the direction of the topic if you're aff. When you're neg, you can negate the aff in a variety of ways, as long as you have a link to the aff.

- Theory is fine. But you've got to slow down if you expect me to write it down.

- I'm very, very unlikely to vote for 'tricks.' Like,really unlikely. I recommend you don't read them in front of me.

Speech docs, evidence:

- Yes, I want to be included on the email chain. My email is htripe@omahamarian.org.

- However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to be following along in your doc. Chances are, I won't even open up the doc during the round unless there is an evidence challenge/indict raised by one of the debaters.

- Sending your speech doc is part of prep time. This should theoretically take you no more than 10 seconds if you've practiced.

- I will likely NOT read a bunch of evidence after the round. Debate is an oral activity, and you should communicate the important warrants from your evidence to me during your speeches.

Zach Wallenburg Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 10:31 AM CDT

*LD PARADIGM AT THE BOTTOM*

Bio Stuff:

I am a third-year debater at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He/Him/They/Them/Whatever

Email Chain: zach.wallenburg@gmail.com

Debated 4 years of policy at Shawnee Mission West (2017-2021) [Education, Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice]

UNL NFALD (2021- ???) [Forever Wars, Election Campaigns, Nuclear Weapons]

Assistant Coach at Lincoln NorthStar 2022-23

Big Picture: (edited 9/13/22)

Tech ---X----------- Truth

I default to an offense/defense paradigm. Every debate can be condensed to questions of theory (T & FW) and then of implementation (Plan, DA, CP/Perms). Chances are I will evaluate them in that order.

SOME SPECIFICS:

Speed:

is fine. but slow down for tags and analytics and be conscious of the setting-

IF YOU DON'T SIGNPOST I MAY NOT FLOW IT

DAs

IDK what to say here... ask me questions I guess if you have them

More impact calc in the rebuttals == more likely I'm gonna vote for you.

CPs

need a net benefit.

I like a good PTX Da with a CP that solves enough of the aff.

I'll default to sufficiency framing until I'm instructed otherwise

I'm probably not gonna kick the CP for you unless I receive that instruction- you generally need to answer the offense on it if you're gonna go for it

cheating cps are fine until you get called out- then give a good reason why you read it.

CP/Perm Theory can be a voter for either side if I'm given strong standards and in-depth impact analysis.

That doesn't mean you should go for (or waste very much time answering) a blippy theory violation or RVI in your last speech

is my favorite. I default to competing interps. Reasonability is best explained as an impact filter to education as opposed to some arbitrary gut-check. I think potential abuse is generally a voter, but, like all things, I can be persuaded otherwise.

ON THE NEG:

Generally speaking you don't need to go for the alt. The framework page is super important and often underutilized-

Links are best framed as linear disads to affirmative methods

I have a working understanding of Puar, D & G, Foucault, dare I say Baudrillard?, and Marx/Cap, so other lit bases will require a bit more explanation.

***Don't use words you don't understand/can't explain to your opponent(s)***

I can usually tell if you're just racing through blocks and would definitely prefer contextual analysis

PLANLESS AFFS: I am probably not the most qualified to judge your K aff although I have read several planless affs before - if you read one there's a chance you'll get a frustrating ballot (especially if I feel that analysis is lacking)

My very favorite rounds are K v K but those rounds get messy fast so proceed with caution.

FW/T vs K aff

Win your method. I don't think Fairness is the best stand-alone impact but it probably functions well as an internal link to nearly every other impact on this flow. A better way to phrase this argument would be "clash is key to sustainable debate" and don't shy away from big impact framing. i.e. under the affs interpretation, debate would collapse.

Speaker Points?

I'll try to rank speakers based on who had the largest impact on the round and more often than not, who does the best job at framing each argument in the context of my decision.

----------------------------------------------------------HIGH SCHOOL LD---------------------------------------------------------

(updated for Lincoln Southwest 2022)

I rarely did Lincoln Douglas in high school so I may not be familiar with many "community norms" right off the bat. When in doubt, read my policy paradigm from above because that's kinda my "default" most rounds.

Generally speaking, I will do as little intervention as possible so please do your best to write my ballot for me.

"You are voting ___ today in order to _________ and __________." A lot of times if I like and agree with this sentence I will use it as part of my RFD.

PHIL: Do what you do best. I would hope that anyone reading a case that creates a moral imperative would explain that imperative and why it outweighs or turns any competing method. Morality framing can be persuasive but it's no excuse for lazy debating. If you are winning your philosophy, it is also important to win how your case accesses that philosophy and why your opponent fails to access it. I have seen too many debates that end up in "Kant is right vs Kant is wrong" which makes my job particularly difficult if neither side explains how the answer to that question should compel me to vote one way or another.

PROGRESSIVE: This is the type of debate I am most familiar with. See policy paradigm for details.

TRAD: Cool. This is the type of LD they did in Kansas so I am slightly more familiar with this structure. I will always evaluate through a lens of offense and defense so win your framing and filter the rest of the arguments through that lens.

TRICKS: Usually not for me. I will note vote on incomplete arguments, even if dropped. I am sympathetic to bad defense when its responding to bad offense. I think all arguments should be contestable and winnable.

My preconceived notions of this particular activity have been highly influenced by Nicholas Wallenburg and Colin Dike so I recommend reading their paradigms if you want a better idea of where I'm coming from.

Amelia Weis Norfolk High School

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 4:00 AM EDT

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!

Colten White Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 6:28 AM CDT

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.

Nicole Williamson Hastings

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 6:09 AM CDT

Win the flow. As simple as that.

In terms of your constructive arguments or "original case":

I don't mind "creative" contentions so long as they are properly supported. This means that your primary contentions only need to be tangentially related, so long as you provide a cognizable link to the resolution. It is your opponent's job to raise a valid defense, call irrelevance, or reframe the more important arguments.

This gives you a lot of freedom to implement "more interesting" arguments. However, this is not a pass to present truly abusive or wholly non-topical arguments.

In terms of responding to your opponent's case:

I will vote for whoever wins the flow. Therefore, I like when debater's roadmap clearly and give explicit voters. I don't count roadmaps against a debater's time so long as they are less than 30 seconds.

I will not flow an argument in your favor unless you tell me why I should. Conversely, if your opponent drops a contention completely, I won't flow it in your favor unless you tell me to. I firmly believe that it is the judge's job to flow all arguments, but it is not the judge's job to debate/argue in their mind for you.

Speed:

I personally cannot handle that much speed. I can listen to you when you talk a little fast but, keep in mind a judge can't flow what I can't understand. If you choose to talk fast you have to enunciate your words. If you are talking too fast I will say clear. If you choose to continue at that speed I will say clear again. If I still am unable to flow and understand you then I will drop my pen and stop flowing until I am able to understand you.

Logistics:

Pre-flow before you come into the room. Keep your own time. If you don't already have the time constraints and speech order memorized, make sure to write it down before we start.

Cross-examination/Crossfire:

I don't care if you sit during these. In PF, I prefer teams to alternate asking and answering questions (unless it's a very brief follow-up). If not, a lot of unnecessary time gets taken up by asking/negotiating who is going to take the next question.

Have fun and be civil.

Jacob Wolfe Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 2:16 PM CDT

UNL NFA-LD

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

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

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

1) Tech Over Truth

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

3) Please read a trigger warning if applicable

4) NO NEW IN THE TWO

5) I will give low-speak wins

Public Forum

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

2nd Rebuttal should respond to 1st Rebuttal

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

Grand cross is my favorite speech.

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

I weigh T>K>CP and Case=DA

Lincoln Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

No moral skep- it will drive me up the wall

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

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

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

DO NOT READ A PLAN TEXT IN LD

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

Julia Zeleny Lincoln East High School

Login to Tabroom

LSW Silver Talon

2023 — Lincoln, NE/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges