hi all! my name is kyzz azucena (she/her) and i’m a current freshman at nebraska wesleyan university to study biochemistry & molecular biology with an intent to be on the pre-med track.

background: i debated for lincoln southwest high school in public forum debate from 2020-2024. i primarily debated on the local circuit but I have experience competing in the national circuit as well. during my time I was an alternative to nationals (2023), qualified to the national tournament (2024) and i placed third in the state (2024).

general: i believe the debate should be a kind and inclusive space to all debaters. i view debate as a game so be strategic on what arguments you go for and what you extend in later speeches. i am typically tech over truth - so i’ll evaluate any argument as long as you have strong warranting and links that you extend throughout the round. i will try to evaluate what I have based on the flow but also please convince me. I generally vote on an argument that has better warranting and weigh implication. i typically give an oral rfd unless the tournament specifically requires me to not disclose my decision. please feel free to ask any questions after round. the only way to get better is to ask for feedback to learn from your mistakes in round.

public forum: i don’t coach so assume i have very little topic knowledge. before all your speeches please give me a quick off time road map before you start your speeches - it allows me to organize my flow easier. make road maps quick and efficient!

evidence exchange: please set up a form of evidence exchange before the round starts! either speech drop or email chain - it makes the round so much more efficient when regarding evidence! i would love to be on the evidence exchange, for an email chain add kyzzazu05@gmail.com. when setting up any form of evidence exchange please do it before round - if you do it in the middle of the round i will get annoyed because you’re wasting time at that point. when it comes to the evidence debate i will only look at the evidence if you tell me to read it in a speech!!

cross: i will be listening in cross but i don’t flow during that time. i’m probably messing around on my computer during that time or feedback i think of during round. if you want anything to be evaluated from cross please bring it up in your speech, and then I’ll flow and evaluate it based off the articulation given in your speech.

rebuttal: i find that numbering your responses make it easier to follow down the flow. all first rebuttal needs to do is go down your opponents flow to respond to their case and weigh. in second rebuttal, i expect you to frontline your case and respond to your opponents case then weigh. all arguments not responded to in first rebuttal, i consider conceded even if you try to respond to these arguments in later speeches in round. please don't just dump a bunch of responses on me without clear warranting - you need to tell me what the evidence says and why i should prefer it.

summary: i understand that there are numerous ways of organizing this speech so I am fine with any approach as long as you keep a few things in mind. first defense isn't sticky - if you're extending any evidence tell me what it says and why I should prefer it. extend your warranting. gjve me specific reasons why I should prefer you over your opponents. for second summary, don’t bring up new responses or evidence. be strategic in summary so - please don't extend everything. pick and choose what to go for and collapse on to condense the round. i’d prefer you to go for fewer, clear warranted and explained arguments rather than a bunch of blippy unwarranted arguments. when extending impacts - you need to extend the link level too (please don’t just throw an impact on extinction to me and expect me to know how you got there). i would also love to see clear impact weighing implications in this speech.

final focus: condense the round clearly in this speech!! tell me what i’m voting for and basically write my ballot for me in this speech. basically explain where on the flow you're winning and why. i enjoy seeing nice impact weighing in this speech. at the end of the round, i want to do as little work as possible when writing my rfd. simply just tell me where I am voting and why I should prefer you over my opponents. typically by the end of second summary i know what team i’m voting for. but when it comes to close rounds it’s usually the final focus that sells it for me so clearly tell me why i should be voting for you on what specific arguments, extend your links, impacts and weigh!!

prep: each team has three minutes of prep. i expect each team to keep track of your own time, but i also will be keeping track on my side. i keep close attention to prep time (i do time it on my side) so please don’t steal prep. i will stop flowing if you go over 10 seconds of your speech times. i expect you to take prep to ready any evidence!!!!

speaks: i would say i’m pretty lenient and flexible when it comes to speaks. i generally average around a 28 to get higher speaks I’d like to see further development in arguments along with good warranting and weighing implications in round. if you run a “we should all get 30 speaks” off i most likely will give you it. if you are awfully rude though i will drop your speaks. just be kind to your opponents and you’ll be okay.

speed: i am fine with speed as long as long as your clear and I can understand you on the flow. please enunciate and be clear. i’ll yell speed or clear if I have difficulty following - i’m typically good with flowing speed as long as your clear! but just know i can only type/write so fast so consider that before hand. just so you know if your going a speed faster than 250 wpm and not being clear by brain does tend to shut off - bc it becomes hard to flow atp.

progressive pf:

theory: i would much rather judge a round based on substance than theory. but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it - as long as it's debated well with good warranting and implications i will evaluate it to the best of my ability. i generally feel comfortable judging a theory round as long as it’s run well. feel free to ask me if you're thinking of running an off. but here's a few tips anyways:

• i believe theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. please don’t run theory just for my ballot. only run it for real abuse in round and to recognize it, so we can make debate a safer place.
• i generally believe that disclosure theory is good and paraphrasing is bad. i will still listen to all the answers to these shells and evaluate the off to the best of my ability
• when running an off please send a doc even if you’re gonna be clear
• even if you don’t know the technical way to respond to the off - please do your best to answer the warranting given. it’s okay if you have to exempt the shell!!

framework: i feel comfortable voting off framework! just make sure to extend your framing in each speech. if your opponents don’t respond to your framing - i will vote off on the framing you give me in your constructive. i’ve noticed framework debates haven’t been as common in the pf circuit regularly but i love a good framework debate!!!

topicality: i would feel comfortable voting on topicality . i have a little experience running t - just with the pf time constrains it wouldn’t be my first choice. but do run topicality if you decide so - i’ll still evaluate it as long as the warranting is there and extending well.

k’s: i would say i can evaluate progressive arguments as long as their articulated well. the only progressive argument i’d feel uncomfortable voting on is k’s. i have very little experience running them/debating them. that being said that doesn’t mean i won’t evaluate it. i’ll do it to the best of my ability.

other events: i have very limited experience on the other events. just do what you do best! please just be clear and extend your warranting clearly. i’ll do my best to evaluate the round!!!

if you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after the round. if you have anything i can do to make the round more inclusive and a safe space you can also contact me through my email kyzzazu05@gmail.com! have fun and good luck!

My name is Noah Bearden. I have one year of experience as a PF Debater, although I have not been a member of the community in three years. I competed on a more traditional circuit, so this will inform my judging.

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

Congress

I love a good speaking style but the number one emphasis must be solid arguments. Speaking loudly and with energy is awesome but it isn’t a good substitute for making unique logical arguments.

Sources

Use professional sources. I typically like to hear their qualifications (professor at Harvard, etc.), and year. I would make sure you have your sources accessible in case a debater challenges your sources. When someone challenges your sources, and you have them available to support your claim, it makes you look really prepared.

Refutation

Refute your opponents. If you aren’t refuting, you aren’t really debating anything. The further and further the debate on a bill goes on, the more and more refutation I would like to hear. You should be able to do this by taking notes of the opposing arguments and researching or pointing out flaws. Directly refuting specific points of other representatives respectfully can be done by saying something along the lines of “Representative Smith, when you claim ____, understand _____.”

Rehash

Make sure your points are original. Hearing the same points over and over again by different speakers doesn't add anything to the debate, it just drags it on. If you can't come up with anything new, then you should refute what's been said. If everything seems to have already been refuted, it's probably time to move the previous question.

Presentation

Try not to read off directly from your notes or laptop. Having notes is great but make sure you're not just reading them off word by word in a Congress event. This can be difficult to do in the beginning but if you practice your confidence in this will improve.

Professionalism

Show professionalism. This means avoiding slang, slouching, talking during other speeches, or any type of manner that could be perceived as rude to your peers. Remember that this is a mock Congress so you should be acting as an elected Representative.

Quality > Quantity

While I appreciate being active in the debate, giving the most speeches isn't going to necessarily make you rank the best. Quality is over quantity when it comes to giving speeches just to give speeches. That being said if you have a great speech for every bill, that's really awesome. Just make sure you aren't wasting time in the debate with half-effort speeches. There’s no specific number of speeches I’m necessarily looking for in a tournament. Your questions themselves do not get ranked however actively asking questions does show you are participating in the debate and that you care which is very good to see.

Respect

Treat all of your peers with respect. This should be self-explanatory.

Scoring

On Tab, I’ll list what you can do to improve.

6 - Exceptional Speech. I don’t give out lots of these so if you did this you were great. Great arguments, great refutation, great sources, great presentation, great professionalism, and great time.

5 - Great Speech. There was likely a bit to improve, but overall this is something to be proud of.

4 - Above Average Speech. Good work, look at my tips and you’ll be placing in no time.

3 - Decent Speech. You got the hang of it, check to see what you can improve

2 - Alright Speech. You have a good bit of room for improvement.

1 - Something’s not quite right. There’s some work to do.

Overall, if you’re scoring on the lower side, it’s not a reason to feel bad. Look at the advice your judges give you, practice, and you will improve. If your judges are ranking you lower it’s not because they don’t like you or are trying to be mean, but they want you to succeed. If they tell you it was an awesome speech when in reality it needs some work, it’s not going to help you grow as a debater and ultimately that’s the goal of giving feedback.

Have fun

If you mess up, don’t worry about it, just keep doing your best.

PF

Refutation is number 1. When one side gives me point A, B, and C on we should pass a resolution and the other side gives me point A, B, and C we we should fail a refutation, there's not much to work with there on which side is the clear winner. But when one side can not only tell me why they are in the right but the other side is in the wrong the winner is clear. If the opposing side is saying something that is wrong or doesn't make sense, do not let them get away with it- tell me why they are wrong or why it doesn't make sense.

Make sure your links are clear. If you're going to be debating a topic such as free school lunches and start talking about nuclear weapons, its probably a pretty bold claim. Bold claims are fine, but the bolder they are, the stronger the link back to the resolution needs to be.

Hi! email: rodneyedwards402@gmail.com

Former School: Millard North High School (Omaha, Nebraska)

Competition Record: Competeted in LD, Congress and Extemp for 3 years. Qualified to nationals my senior year in the House.

Judging Record: Judged Congress at Nationals in Prelims and Sems. Judged local Nebraska PF and LD Circuit for 5 years.

Congress

-Direct clash is critical. You are not speaking in a vacuum.

-I don’t care about in-depth explanations about who you’re citing as long as you’re citing it truthfully and the warrant is there/true.

-Make your speeches interesting by actually telling me something new or important.

PF

I'm pretty comfortable in just about any round. I'm open to voting for unorthodox arguments, as long as they're fleshed out and weighed well. Weighing your arguments should be your go to in front of me. Speed shouldn't be an issue. If there is an evidence issue, address it in the round. I'm not morally opposed to theory in PF, but it better actually be abusive.

LD

I'm pretty familiar overall with the format and argumentation styles. (Theory, T, Phil, CP's...) Try not to get hyper-specific with any jargon. Please send me docs and tell me if you didn't read certain cards. I enjoy hearing interesting philosophical arguments, and I don't like tricks. I'm open to different types of arguments as long as you explain well what the role of the ballot is supposed to be. I default to a "competiting worlds" paradigm. If you want me to vote for something, tell me and argue why. I'll usually always disclose. If there is any likely tech issue, try to inform me before the round if possible, but I will be understanding if something happens in round.

If something's not addressed here, feel free to ask before the round!

be nice to each either and weigh your impacts :)

Debated PF for 4 years at Millard North

Speech docs are wonderful (ikamilp@gmail.com).

Flay judge. Appreciate clear weighing. It's really that simple weigh if you want a ballot.

I am really nice with speaks unless you do something problematic.

Hey everyone!

I was a PF debater for 4 years, so I understand that style of debate well. As for policy and LD, I'm less experienced.

I consider myself to be a flow judge, so please make sure you signpost in your speeches or else I may not catch everything you say!

As for speeches, I'm really okay with whatever you want to do, just make sure that the FF includes where you are winning on the flow. Please give me reasons to vote for you!

PLEASE be respectful to those you are debating against! I love debate for the inclusivity, so just be a nice person!

Feel free to email me about any questions, or include me in any email chains: jaleigha.kambeitz@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

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

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

Experience:

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

Preferences:

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

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

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

Speech-by-speech notes:

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

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

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

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

Progressive Args:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks: I'll pray for you...

Post-Round:

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

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

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

Congress:

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

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.

• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.

• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill.

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

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

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello debaters! My name is Onjoy Mahmood. I competed in Congressional Debate for Lincoln Southwest from 2018-2022. Here is what I will be looking for while I am judging. However, I will deviate from other judges and I'll tell you what I want to see in order for me to CONSIDER giving you a 1st place ranking in a given session...

--THE BASICS--

• Speeches must have an engaging intro. I will not penalize for saying "Representatives of the Congress assembled here today, I stand in aff/neg because..." But you will be rewarded for giving me a nice anecdote/statistic to start your speech. I also want to see a clear roadmap of what you will talk about in your speech
• Use the Claim->Warrant->Impact formula for your speeches as much as you can
• Have good sources. I will reward speeches that have sources that come from high-profile newspapers (country of origin does not matter as long as it directly relates to your speech), university studies, or other high-level institutions. If you cannot find such sources because of the nature of the bill, that is fine, just make sure you tell us how the person/organization you refer to is qualified to talk about the subject at hand.
• IMPACTS, IMPACTS, IMPACTS... this is the most important part of your speech along with refutation. Tell me why your points and your evidence matter in the flow and context of the debate and leverage your impacts against other arguments when debating the topic
• Refutation and impacts go hand in hand. This is a DEBATE event. Win the "argument matchup" -- your argument has to defeat the argument(s) presented from the other side to do this. Using your impacts as a base for refutation is a really good idea.
• Your speaking style needs to have intensity and aggression. Be passionate about what you are talking about. After all, you are representing your constituents in Congress. Show that you care.
• Your points in your speech should be flowing well, one to another
• Be active in questioning. Use questioning blocks when called whenever you can. It will show that you are engaged and that you want to learn and succeed

--OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES--

• I reward quality and consistency of speeches in my rankings. My ranking formula is fairly simple - I take the average score of all the speeches you gave and then look at the consistency of your speech scores, and rank accordingly... so keep that in mind when you prepare and give speeches in round

• You must speak extemporaneously. I don't want to see you reading from your computer for 3 minutes straight
• I am trusting that you are not embellishing or lying about your sources. I am using the Honor System
• No rehash!!!
• Last but certainly not least, I will not tolerate any racism, homophobia, ableism, sexism, misogyny, or any other statements/conduct that is disrespectful to anyone else. You will be heavily penalized in your ranking for such behavior, regardless of how well you perform. This is not to hurt you, or your debate career, or your general future; but instead to teach that the aforementioned behaviors are not acceptable in society. I hope and nor do I think that I will have to use these rules against anyone, but I have seen this type of behavior in rounds before, and I do not want to see it again.

I know I gave you all a lot to mull over, but I say all this because I want to see you all succeed. I wish all of you successful tournament and season!

General

• Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
• I have some difficulty hearing, so I would appreciate it if you send speech docs! I will also bump speaking points if you send speech docs.
• I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
• Email: blmeints1@gmail.com or bmeints@lps.org

PF

I can handle some speed however (within reason, i.e. no spreading), I am out of practice, so if you are going to talk fast make sure you are speaking clear and you are more in-depth in your arguments.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).

I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.

Congress

In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!

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

--

Experience:

Competing

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

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

Coaching

2022: Lab Instructor at NDF

2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

--

IMPORTANT:

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

--

General:

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

--

Evidence Exchanges:

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

--

PF:

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

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

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

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

"Progressive" PF:

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

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

--

LD:

Pref Sheet

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 4

Tricks - Strike

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

--

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

Hi guys! I was a 4 year PF debater at Millard North. I can understand theory if necessary, but I'm not too well versed so, if you're gonna read it, make sure you explain it very very well. If I don't understand it, I can't weigh it :)

Impact weighing is preferred please and thank you. I don't flow blippy extensions. Don't just "reread your case" in rebuttal, actually do some analysis. Rebuilding in first rebuttal is not necessary, no new args after second summary. Speaking speed is fine, if you're gonna go inhumanly fast, just send me the speech doc (kashish.poore6213@gmail.com) thanks. I don't flow cross, so if you have an important point, bring it up in speech. drop a turn and the arg flows over to the opponent :) so don't do it, just answer the damn thing, or explain why.

If you make me laugh i'll bump up your speaker points by 1-2 depends on how hard.

If you have anything to say after round, email por favor!

General Overview:

***If you are running any sensitive arguments, or even if you think your arguments may be sensitive, please provide a content warning before the round begins. I think this is vital to creating a positive environment in the debate space. If you feel you are not comfortable engaging in a round due to sensitive content please feel comfortable letting me know and we can figure out what to do next.***

Did PF & Congress for 2 years; qualified for gold toc my only varsity year. Millard North HS (22') did a year of NFA-LD.

Currently doing political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

He/Him/His

be respectful, please. We are an inclusive space.

Please make an effective way of sharing evidence if called for. I want speech docs for constructive.

Add me to the email chain: arnavrishi7@gmail.com ( I want the speeches in the email chain) Makea speechdrop

Email me if you want an extended RFD or any questions in General.

Vote Squo on presumption if the round is a wash. (hope it does not resort to that)

Auto drop for being homophobic/racist/sexist/queerphobic.

- FRAME THE ROUND!!!! I don't want to decide which impact I like more

- Tech > Truth. I'm Tabula Rasa but my BS detector is pretty good too.

- If you want me to look at your opponent's evidence, call it out in your speech

- No sticky defense. If it's dropped and you wanna go for it, extend the warrants. I'm not going to do it for you

- I can do basic cross-application of arguments (not the same thing as warrant extension). That also means contradictions deck overall offense.

- I like Double binds or "Even if" argumentation

- Technical genius will be rewarded with speaker points. Example: Non-uniqueing your argument if it's turned so you can kick it

- Warrant debates are the best debates. Evidence is good and necessary but you shouldn't hide behind it.

- Speed is fine but clarity is required. I'll yell clear a few times. If you go fast, you better use up all the time.

Public Forum: I am a typical Flow Judge and have topic knowledge. Please do not think I will make a decision based on my knowledge.

I am good with flex prep, if you guys want to skip cross for like an extra minute of prep is also fine.

NO Debate math in all forms.

I will not make args for you, so tell me where to vote.

ways to get my ballot:

1. Extensions

2. Link chains

3. Impacts

4. Uniqueness debate

Progressive stuff

• I will evaluate theory
• Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in the second rebuttal)
• Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
• if you read a small school warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
• Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to
• extend the interp, vio,and standards through all speeches
• theory shells are valid so as they are not dumb or meme cases. I will need *very* clear warranting on this though. I believe in Disclosure, This is not an excuse to run it as a path to the ballot in abusive manners.

Going on to weighing..... I do not want to hear extend so and so card name. I want you to develop the card itself. And do not use buzzwords like "scope" or "magnitude" if you do not know how to use them.

Onto evidence ethics, I do not want to see improperly cut cards and wrong claims a particular card is making. If it is brought up as a voter,It will affect my decision by voting you down. Cut cards properly. please do not power tag. it is no fun.

Be nice to each other during Cross, I understand it can get heated but honestly, you don't get anything out of being a jerk.

I will not be flowing cross, but I will be listening just in case it is brought up during speeches.

If a card seems too good to be true; I may call for the card. Usually, I wouldn't

On to Summary and Final Focus;

Please Signpost as much as you can. Please collapse!!!!

I will not evaluate any new evidence or args brought up in the final focus.

Please tell me where and how I should vote. Remember I will not decide for you.

+0.5 if you disclosed. (hmu before the round!!!)

+0.3 if you started the email chain/speechdrop

Good Debating <3.

Congress:

FLUENCY: Ok so I want you to be fluent and have respect during the course of the round. I would want you to be specific in your args and how you present them to the chamber matters a lot.

Questioning: So, I will be listening to the questions asked and how you respond to them. Be tactful and wary of how you respond. Your answers are essentially an extension of your speech. Treat your answers like that.

Rehash: Your rankings and speaks will be low if you just repeat what your peers have brought to the table. I am a firm believer in that every speech in congress should be meaningful and have something unique. It is a bonus if you restate the point but make it a refutation or make your position stronger.

IMPACT: The impact of your arguments should be clearly stated. If you don't state the impact of your argument, your claim and warrant will be considered filler speech.

CLASH: Clash is an essential part of the round. It should be a large part of your speeches, not counting the authorship or first negative. It should also be evident in the questions that you ask.

Good Debating. <3

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

Pronouns:

He/him/his or judge works*

General:

Refined arguments over mass card dumping. (clear link)

Numbers only matter if they are significant, so don’t throw them around.

You must extend/fully restate arguments in the summary, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round.

IMPACT!! At the end of the round, I want to see clear voting points that have been pulled through consistently.

If you choose to run progressive arguments (i.e. Theory, K’s), please do so in a way that is inclusive and accessible to all. I will listen if everything is clearly explained and articulated throughout the debate at an appropriate time.*

Evidence Exchanges:

Use SpeechDrop. If we're doing an email chain, teams should start it as soon as they get into the round. Please add kai.sasaki2006@gmail.com to the email chain.

*I am here to make sure everyone has a fun, safe and exciting experience with debate. Any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc. arguments will not be weighed in the round.

*I am not keen on teams running progressive arguments (i.e. Theory, K's) as a tactic to confuse their opponents; I don't see it as making debate inclusive and accessible to all.

Good luck!

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

--> NFA LD w/UNL.

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

--> 4 years in HS Public Forum.

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

Important:

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I Evaluate Rounds:

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

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

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

Public Forum:

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

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

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

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

Round Preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/Policy:

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

General:

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

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

--Tricks are a no-go for me.

K's, Theory, Topicality:

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points:

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

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

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

Other Things to Keep in Mind:

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

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

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

About Me:

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

--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate

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

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

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

Debated at LaPorte High School on the Indiana Circuit

Debated primarily Congress in the past

I value civil and clear clash in both cross examination and speeches.

I appreciate short, clear, and concise link chains with real data.

Evidence outweighs analysis.

I do not like multipart questions as it takes away from the ability of other debaters to ask questions

I am a mostly traditional-leaning judge. I am willing to hear non-traditional cases but I am not particularly familiar with some of the jargon/strategies and I will default to traditional voting framework when if I am forced to choose between a traditional and a non-traditional burden.

I am a pretty flow judge. Nothing super specific besides that I don't vote on disclosure as I don't know enough about it at this time and I don't feel there has been an explicit shift in the Nebraska LD community to disclosure. I can mostly understand spreading as long as its not like over 500 wpm as long as you are clear. Anything over will be a gamble, it pretty much just comes down whether or not I can understand you so tread carefully.

I understand debate jargon when related to PF or LD. I am not super knowledgeable about some policy stuff but I am getting better the more I see it and I accept kritiques and what not as long as the framework makes sense in the context of LD.

If I am judging you, it's probably LD, so here are a few pointers. I want good, clean, respectful debates. I know that you are competitive and want to win, but remember that this extracurricular is about enhancing you and your opponent's education. Please explain your arguments well. Speak clearly and don't talk so fast that nobody can understand you. Make sure your cards say what the tagline claims(Please be honest). Have good manners, and try not to say anything you know is offensive or rude.

As for the actual ballot. The first thing I decide on in the debate is who won the Value/Criterion. Once I know what Value/Criterion I am judging the debate on, I then decide whose contentions achieve the Value/Criterion better and decide the debate on that. Pretty basic stuff. If you choose to debate with a more progressive framework(like a K or something), go ahead: I'll just treat on my flow like it's a traditional Value/Criterion framework. Regarding actual arguments, I'll vote for almost anything as long as it's well warranted.

And finally: The speaker points. I judge speaker points completely separately from the rest of the debate, and base them off your strength as a communicator, even if you don't win the debate.

Best of luck:)

**I have judged this NFA topic once (1). Please go slow and explain. If youre fast on tags, or fast on theory, it is entirely your fault if you drop because there was an argument I didn’t hear or understand.

They/Them

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021; 2023-Present

Email: addissonLstugart@gmail.com

TBH you can probably avoid the rest if you're familiar with Nadia Steck's or Justin Kirks paradigms.

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic. If either opponent doesn't want speed, neither do I.

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

For public forum debate:

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. IDK how I feel about voting on this theory. I have, but I don't like it.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk; the man, the myth, the legend.

Jeffrey Thormodsgard

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

pronouns: he/him

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

Rebuttals:

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

Summary/FF:

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

Crossfire:

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

Prep time/calling for cards:

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

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

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

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans

Run whatever you think will win.

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

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

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

Disclosure is good (on balance)

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

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

Framework

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

Postrounding

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

Other stuff:

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

LD

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

I use she/her/hers pronouns.

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

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

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

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

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

-Case

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck and have fun!

Most important thing: do NOT be mean, hateful, or discriminatory towards others. You don't have to like your opponents, but you do have to respect them. If you don't, you can easily guess what will happen. Remember, Debate is supposed to be fun so don't stress too much! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask after the round (email is jmmelon31@gmail.com). My memory isn't that great, so sooner (within ~2 days) rather than later is appreciated.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before round! If you think there is something general missing that would help future competiters, please let me know and I'll do my best to include it.

Little bit about me: I competed for LSW on the Nebraska circuit in PF for 3 years and Congress for 1. However, I would say I am decently familiar with both events. Additionally, I have also competed in World Schools and Extemp Debate.

PF:

Constructive should be case, Rebuttal should be refutation, Summary and Final Focus crystallization and impact weighing. Take your time to explain what your impacts are, as well as clearly explain the warrants behind your arguments. To put it bluntly, if you cannot access your impacts then they don't matter and I won't vote for them. For rebuttal, having 2 well explained attacks is better than having 7 blippy ones, as well-explained and thoughtful arguments (even if there are less of them) make for better debate and are easier to vote for.

Evidence wise, you should be able to produce cards if the opponent or I ask for them, as that is an NSDA rule. I generally will give you the benefit of the doubt evidence wise, but if a card doesn't pass the gut vibe check then I may ask for it. If you are caught falsifying or miscutting/misclipping evidence, that is grounds for an autodrop and 25 speaks.

Important note for me: I DO NOT like speed. I have issues with my hands that make it hard to flow at a quick pace, and going fast in general makes debate less accessable. Focus on developing good argumentation rather than trying to go fast, since the former will make or break you and the latter won't. I'd rather judge one or two strong contentions than 3 or 4 weak ones. If nothing else, this is the one time you can go slow in PF without being penalized. If you want to go fast/spread fine, but it A) shows poor judge adaptability (this mainly affects speaker points, I won't drop you on this alone) and B) there is no way I'm going to catch all of your warrants and arguments, so "my opponent didn't respond to this" will not be a good enough answer. Likewise, if you chose to go fast and there's an argument I don't vote on because it wasn't on my flow, that is on you.

I will start at a base speaks of 28, moving it based on how the round progresses. Unless you commit a droppable offense (falsifying evidence, misgendering opponents, being racist, etc.), I generally won't go below a 26.5.

Congress:

I'll outline the three big things I look for below:

Debate:

This is the most important part, as despite all the funny jokes (I made them as well), Congress is fundamentally a debate event. As such, your speech (unless author/sponsor) should contain some refutation of other speakers. If its early in the round (1N, 2A/N) it doesn't need to be (and honestly shouldn't be) your entire speech, but you should try to include it. I am more than fine with you introducing new arguments later in round, as it beats rehash, but you should find a way to include refutation as well.

As this is a debate event, you need to have some type of evidence in your speeches. In general, like in PF, I will prefer 1 fully fleshed out argument (plus refutation) as opposed to 2-3 less developed ones. If you are caught falsifying evidence, that is an automatic last and a score of one on that speech. Congress is a lot looser than every other debate event when it comes to evidence, don't abuse it.

If you have to choose between having good arguments or good presentation (ideally you should have both), choose good argumentation, as that is most important.

Presentation:

There is a very fine line between passion and aggression, as the former will help you and latter will hurt you. Throughout speeches and questioning, maintain decorum and be respectful to your opponents. Your presentation should match the tone of your speech, so if you are talking about a serious topic your intro/speech should not have puns or jokes. Now, if your speech isn't dealing with heavy content matter then those touches are fine, just know when they are appropriate.

Unless it's late in the round, there should be some sort of intro before you go into your point. Unless you are a sponsor or first neg, you shouldn't have time for a long conclusion. If you have to choose between concluding or staying in time, stay in time, as your speech should be clear enough that I know what you are talking about.

Speed is an absolute no-no in congress for me. When presenting evidence, it should have date, author full name, and publication/qualifications. Your points should be organized clearly enough to distinguish between them.

Representation:

This is easily the most underutilized part of congress. You should be representing your constituents, so almost every speech should tie back to your constituents in some way (even if it relies on nation-wide evidence). Not too much to say on this, as it is a basic but key element.

Other stuff:

Don't abuse parliamentary procedure or waste time with it, especially in regards to recesses. In general, if you want to talk with other members of the chamber, call for a 1-2 minute in-house recess. Questioning is usually not the place for new information, as if it is important then bring it up in your speech. Amendments are part of the legislative process, so introducing them is great!...so long as it's relevant to the debate. Don't amend a bill for the sake of amending it and getting another speech, amend a bill to address points made in round. In general, I will default to the parli or Nebraska (my home state) norms, so please ask if you have any specific questions.

LD/CX/etc:

I will do my best to avoid judging these events, but should it happen treat me as flow-lay, see paradigms above (especially PF).

Again, treat those around you with respect and have fun! Best of luck comrades!