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

Short Pref:

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

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

Policy - Go for it.

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

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

Speed

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

T

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

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

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

K

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

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

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

DA/CP

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

Please try not to run offs that contradict each other.

Phil

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

Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what it is. It is not the purpose of this type of debate to identify a solution or a plan to implement in order to fix the resolution. Instead, the purpose is to offer reasoning to support the principle that may be used to guide a decision.

Respect

Respect every judge, coach and opponent. We're all here because we want to be for different reasons. Enjoy the moment and learn from each round. I promise that this experience will resonate throughout your life.

Structure & Framework

This isn't rocket science - if you're going to do something outside of the norm, share that framework as you get started. I will judge on framework. Lincoln Douglas debate has key components of it's structure and I will lean on those components to determine the round.

Hint: the three primary components of the framework include a value premise, value criteria andargumentation.

This is LD debate. It is not Policy, Congress or Public Forum. Pragmatism and solvency are key elements of Policy debate. Having a value, criterion are key argments of your LINCOLN DOULGAS case is why you're here. Have them, defend them and tell me why yours is should be held over all else.

Speaking

Speak clearly, enunciate and be heard. That doesn't mean aggressively interrupting, yelling at or attacking our opponent. Competitive discussion is highly encouraged but attacking your opponent is poor form. If you want to talk at the speed of light, I'm perfectly capable of keeping up. Again...if I can't understand you (or hear you), once again, I can't vote on what you're sharing.

Non-interventionalist

Your job is to tell me what I should vote on. I won't make assumptions or guess where your argument needed to go. It is imperative that you reaffirm your cards and evidence. I also will not share or allow my personal biases to influence my vote. That said - if something is said in a round that is offensive or inappropriate, it will be noted and possibly discussed at the end of the round.

Burden of Proof

Both the affirmative and negative have a burden to prove the argumentation of their case. Both sides have an obligation for resolutional and argumentative decisiveness. The Aff should have the burden to prove the resolution and the Neg should doesn't have to prove that it's false, but it does need to prove that it can't be true. Bottom line - prove to me, and other judges the reason, the logic and the justification of your case.

About Me

I was a LD debater in high school and spent 25 years in Human Resources, and now I am an IT Program Manager (I get to play with cool technology toys). I have had 2 children debate and I love teaching and helping others learn more and become better, stronger communicators. I love judging and giving feedback. After a round if you want more feedback from me, I will always offer something constructive. My goal is simply to enjoy the day and give you tools to be a more effective debater.

Hi, I’m Evan Burns (he/him). I debated in LD for 4 years at Millard North and this is my first year out. I am currently studying actuarial science at UNL.

My email is evanburnsemail@gmail.com if you need to contact me; please include me in any email chain or speechdrop.

TLDR: Read whatever you have fun reading and win on the flow to get my ballot. More specific details are below. If you’re a novice go to the very end there is a section specifically to help you.

First and foremost, make sure your opponent can access the round. Unsafe and bigoted arguments will not be tolerated, this all should go without saying. If it needs saying within round, then you’ll lose and probably need to talk to your coach about it.

General Things

Tech>Truth. I vote based on who is winning the flow.

My goal when evaluating the round is to evaluate the flow with as little intervention as possible. In my mind, assuming or defaulting to some method of evaluating is intervention. What this means for you is I do my best to not vote on presumption or permissibility unless explicitly told a reason to. Tell me what matters in the debate and why, so I don’t have to baselessly make the decision what does.

Don’t assume I know your authors and assume I don’t have topic knowledge. The more complex a position you’re reading the more time you need to explain what that position actually is.

Extensions should have warrants. I want a warrant pulled through the entire round for me to feel good voting for an argument/impact.

Weigh your impacts, don’t make me decide which impact matters the most. Weigh why it matters under whatever framework/ROB/weighing mechanism you have. Do meta-weighing of which weighing mechanisms are the most important. Weigh, weigh, weigh; more weighing can almost always help you and almost always makes my job evaluating the round easier.

Judge instruction is good, it makes it much clearer to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t set aside time for giving judge instruction with me as your judge but do refer to how the line by line is contributing to you getting the ballot.

You know how to signpost; I shouldn’t need to ask you to do it.

Evidence sharing is a must in debate, speechdrop is easier for me but get your case to your opponent and myself however you want to.

I will vote for disclosure theory and lean towards disclosure being good. This doesn’t mean I always vote for disclosure, just win the argument or win the argument that disclosure is bad. In most instances it’s also worth asking before the round for the case and not just getting your disclosure shell ready.

Sit or stand, do whatever is comfy.

Cross-ex certainly exists. Don’t stall too much time in it or be too mean in it. I don’t flow it but I do pay attention. If you want to mention it in a future speech, go ahead just be sure to be specific with what was said during cx and what you are trying to get out of it.

Flex prep is fine if both debaters are fine with it.

Specifics

Trad/Framework: I am perfectly fine with these rounds and am very familiar with them. If this is how you want to debate don’t feel obligated to do something more complex just because I’m fine with more complex arguments. If I’m on a panel with judges who prefer trad debates, don’t think you’re boring me by going for their ballot, just try to win the flow and have some clash. Debating value is strategic in 1/10 trad rounds, before you argue why your value is so much more important than your opponent’s assess whether you are in a round where that is round. If your criterions/frameworks/single standards are different then clash between them is important otherwise I have 0 clue how to

Ks: Ks are fun read them with a couple specific things in mind. I am familiar with most stock Ks and can follow along with most Ks that are read some amount in debate. If you’re reading something especially obscure put in the legwork in explaining it more. Specific links are always better than generic. Be specific about what prefiat impacts you have (if any). Floating PIKs are shifty, you need to actually define your position. When responding to Ks I much prefer when the perms are specific and applied to the Aff you’re reading. With that in mind, perms=severance should have a specific reason why the Aff’s specific perm severs them from the 1AC. In general specificity will get you much further in most K debates.

K-Affs: As a debater I read these occasionally and have less to say about them. If you read one be ready for the T-fwk debate that follows. Topical K-Affs do exist but if you need to ask if you’re K-Aff is topical then it probably isn’t. Don’t waste everyone’s time by insisting your K-Aff is topical when it isn’t. It can be difficult to win that being non-topical is fair so don’t make that you’re primary strategy on the T-fwk debate.

Larp: Larp is not something I personally read a lot, but I’ve debated against it and am familiar with it. Read it if it’s what you want to do, I can keep up with whatever offs you want to read and will evaluate them on the flow. If you want to have a round about more of the theory of larp debate that’s where I’ll start to get a little lost if it gets too dense. When in doubt ask me or spend a little bit more time explaining than you usually would.

Phil: I am fonder of phil debates than most and am familiar with a number of authors; however, I am not fond of phil as a way to just get to presumption/skep/permissibility triggers. Read phil as a position you want to defend, not as a trick. That all being said I enjoy most phil positions if you’re trying to get some offense out of them. Read descriptive frameworks if you want to, they’re cool.

T/Theory: Theory is important to debate, that doesn’t mean it needs to be in every round. Theory that has a point is good, frivolous theory isn’t. I default to competing interps for theory and generally think every RVI should have an argument for why it exists built into it, but I am very open to being convinced a different way of evaluating theory debates is better. Make any arguments you want about what the best way for the judge to approach theory debates as you want. The paradigmatic issues in your shell is very important and skipping it is making the theory debate more difficult for you. The thing I care the most about in theory debates is getting from the standards to the voters. The most straightforward way of in why the standards your norm promotes link best into fairness and education. You can also use other voters than fairness and education, just justify them.

Tricks: Tricks are separate from theory because I don’t think tricks are important to debate. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on tricks but the threshold I have is if an argument takes 5 seconds to make and has half a warrant, then I don’t have a problem with your opponent spending 5 seconds on it and giving half a warrant against it. Blowing up a blip into half of your next speech is also not a good practice.

Speed: I’m fine with speed, but it’s good practice to check if your opponent is. Don’t start at you’re full speed and be sure to slow down for tags. Analytics should be differentiated and some amount slower than cards. All that said, the most important thing is clarity. It doesn’t matter how fast you are if nobody can understand you.

Speaks: Speaks are kind of arbitrary, I’m not going to be tanking your speaks but I’m not giving everyone a 30 because speaks still matter for breaks and seeding. 28.8-29.2 is what I consider to be average. You can make arguments about getting higher speaks in round, just have a warrant.

RFDs: My online RFD is usually more in depth than my verbal one, but if there is something specific you are curious about feel free to ask after round or find me later at the tournament. Arguing with me after round or post-rounding are probably not a good idea, but if you don’t understand or disagree with why I voted the way I did, try to ask questions to have a better understanding of where I might disagree with you.

Debate is supposed to be fun, don’t take it too seriously and have a good time.

Anything I might have missed you can email me or ask me in person and this paradigm will continue to be updated as I think of things I want to add.

FOR NOVICES

First just please signpost and tell me what argument you are responding to in your rebuttals it makes the round much less messy. If I don't know where to put an argument on the flow it is difficult to evaluate. Signposting only serves to help your arguments make it onto my flow.

In order to win a round with me as a judge make sure to have clearly extended impacts weighed under whatever framework is winning. Don't just say, "Extend x because it was conceeded" to pull an argument through the round the whole argument must continue to be explained and implicated alongside other arguments in the round. The easiest way to do this is to explain why your impacts weigh the highest under both frameworks. I will evaluate the round by looking at which framework wins and then using that framework to see which debater has the most important impacts they are winning. This can be easily shown to me by saying at the end of the round, "Judge you vote Aff/Neg because X outweighs under Y framwork because of ABC. This impact happens because of DEF scenario."

In my RFD I will explain why I voted the way I did, what arguments factored into my decision, and which did not, as well as non-voting issues to help you become better debaters. If you have any questions about anything in the round feel free to ask.

Feel free to ask before round if you have any specific questions about my paradigm and good luck novices!

College Policy: Emporia (2012) + KCKCC (2013-'15) | Sems Of CEDA, Doubles At NDT, Won NPDA (2015), Attended Weber Round Robin (2014) and Kentucky RR (2012).

High School Policy: 2009-'12 @ Millard South | 3 TOC Bids, Sems at Berkley, Won NE State CX (2012).

---->
I was primarily a Kritik debater in high school and a Performance/Method debater in college.

No matter the form or content that you are presenting, there are disads, permutations, impact turns, links, no-links, internal links, framework, topicality, sequencing, evidence comparison, and all that jazz to be had.

I am most comfortable in a Clash Of Civilizations (Traditional Vs. K) or K Vs. K debate, but I am open to adjudicating outside of my comfort zone, weighing all kinds of arguments, barring horrendous ones.

I find myself voting on framing, impacts, and internal links as a default. Clash - or contrast - matters.

I love unique spins on resolutions and flipping the script on debate conventions (be unique) while also *using* debate conventions (offense vs. defense, evidence, claim + warrant, comparisons, ethos/pathos/logos).

I have judged over a decade of LD (and even PF) at this point but it is still not my forte. Your jargon, or even how you view the debate in front of us, may be lost on me at times. Assume the worst and hedge, and we can get back on track.

For all debate styles: A good speech is a good speech, a great speech is an art form, and the epic totality of all your speeches should feel fresh, immersive, and have levels to it.

By the end of the debate, it's helpful for me if you emphasize clarity and substance above over-extending yourself on the flow, though you should 100% cover what you need on each flow.

Examples rock. Paint a picture. I'm a visual learner who benefits from repetition.

Show me the debater you are, and I will do due diligence to adapt. Play to your strengths.

Truth over tech (the line-by-line), but tech still matters greatly unless and until a cluster of arguments is formed and won that sets and sways the rhythm, tone, and flow of the debate.

Extend your arguments and evidence, not just your taglines, authors, and dates. Address when your opponent does the bare minimum.

I find that some teams don't capitalize enough on concessions or "moments" in debates, or they do so in a way that is merely surface-level. Use it to frame them out of the debate. Go all in (your mileage may vary).

Interact with the crux of their arguments - the best version of what they are saying - directly on the line-by-line and put offense and defense on the flow. Tilt the scales every chance you get. Control the line-by-line.

I try to flow cross-ex, but no guarantees. This is typically my favorite part of the debate.

Speed is fine. Whether it's good for your precise, situationally-dependent speech, or even just the point you are on, is an entirely other thing.

Clarity over speed, always. Especially for the last 3 speeches.

Seriously, slow down on taglines and analytics. Time constraints? I would rather you be strategic with your time than speed/throw everything at the wall, with the risk that little, if any, of it sticks.

I reward debaters via speaks when they a) start their rebuttal speeches with (valuable) overviews, b) take risks (bonus points when they pay off), c) keep the flows in order or at least mitigate the chaos of a million tiny arguments, and d) have great cross-ex's and bring that same energy and clarity for speeches.

I will disclose speaks if asked.

Don't let the debate get close.

I find that strategic usage of time in rebuttals can make or break a ballot, so I might suggest taking a breath to emphasize key factors in your debate.

Don't out-spread yourself trying to out-spread the opponent. A few well-developed, top-level arguments are better than a few blippy, under-developed shadow-extensions. Take that extra second to strategize the big picture before you dive in.

Of course, you could convince me to defer against my default paradigm.

Role Of The Ballot (ROTB) debates are more than just a blip; I invite both teams to interact with framework arguments in a meaningful way because they become lenses for evaluating everyone's impacts organically.

Consider informing me what my ballot does, and how I should evaluate the debate in front of us. Help me feel it with the weight and rhythm of your arguments. Be proactive on this front.

I want to be able to use what you said in your last speech to genuinely help make my decision. Spend time on the arguments that you are legitimately going for.

Going too fast is just as bad as going too slow.

Yes, you can ask questions during prep.

Run your own prep time.

Email chain is preferred for sharing cards, and I do read the cards. I may ask for you to send all cards you go for in last rebuttal at end of debate.

Email: mattc743@gmail.com

Most of all, just try to have fun.

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

- Speech Drop / Case Sharing -

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

- Progressive cases -

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

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

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

• Policy style used in other debate types -

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

• Theory -

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

- Speed -

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

- Ideal vs. Pragmatic -

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

- Congress -

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

- Lincoln Douglas -

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

- Public Forum -

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

I am and have been the coach at LHS for the last 9 years. I was also the 2021 NSDA's National Coach of the Year.

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

*I will NOT vote on: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, anything other bigotry. Please just be cool people.

*If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.


CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

LD

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. 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 also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) 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. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

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

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

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

Pre-Round Etiquette -

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

Speed:

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

How to get my ballot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also I will NOT vote on:

-Racism

-Homophobia

-Transphobia

-Sexism

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

Speaks

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

Things that bolster speaks:

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

-Not being an a**hole

-Being nice to novices should you hit them

-Having a unique case

-Being able to name 30 distinct pokemon

-Not horsing around

Ways to LOSE speaks

-Being an a**hole

-Being problematic

-Not caring about novices

-Reading a position that you very obviously do not know

-Just be nice and u wont lose any

-Admitting that you unironically enjoy skim milk

Misc:

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

And finally, as a great person once said:

Be rootin

Be tootin

By god be shootin.

But most importantly

Be kind.

Hi :)

General Info:

-I use she/her pronouns

-I want to be on the email chain ( email is delanie.n0214@gmail.com)

-I debated for Millard North High School 2018-2021, I ran both policy and kritical arguments, I have a slightly more than a basic understanding of Bataille, Puar, Preciado, Derrida, most cap arguments, and set col

-I study political science at UNL and currently coach policy at Millard North

- I don't care if you sit, stand, walk, or look at the wall when you speak

- Please be kind.

- if I am judging your LD round- I am fine with any kind of debate- LARP or otherwise- I'll listen to whatever you read in front of me

- if I am judging your PF round- I think PF is generally way underdeveloped in argumentation, that being said, please PLEASE have substantive clash in your rounds, especially in relation to evidence

TLDR:

-Read what you like, debate well and respectfully

My preferences:

- I have an extremely high burden for evidence, if you do not have a warranted piece of evidence attached to your argument at the end of the round and your opponent does- I will default to the evidence every single time. this means you need to extend your evidence well- explain your evidence and contextualize it- you can read as many cards as you'd like but if the text of the card doesn't say what you're saying it does I will have trouble buying your argument.

-Tech > truth almost always

-Do not assume I will read your evidence unless you tell me to and why (if you have a fantastic piece of evidence that answers every single argument your opponent is making, tell me how. Don't just tell me to extend it.)

-PLEASE extend author names when you extend a card (not only author name, but please put it in there) but if I don't know what card you're referencing (especially if you have multiple cards that basically say the same thing), I can't evaluate it, and tend to buy responses when it is answered by your opponent.

-POLICY AFF: If you do not garner solvency or do anything due to your case ( performance, etc.), it will be hard for me to vote for you. Defend your solvency or prove you do something.

-I love Kritical arguments, but I need an extremely clear path to solvency to buy your argument.

- Tagteam cross ex is fine

- I frequently give advice for future arguments in my RFD. If you do not want that, let me know, I will not be offended.

- I will and have (more frequently than I would like) vote(d) neg on presumption,at the end of the round, if I have no reason to believe that the affirmative does anything other than the squo ( or worse), I will vote on presumption.

- don't steal prep; emailing/flashing is not prep

-condo is not my fav, but I won't outright reject it.

-I love a good theory argument; you need to flesh out the impact.

-T is a fun and good time, but I need the impact of a nontopical case.

- Speed is fine, read as fast as you want, i'll clear you

-DisAds: I need specific links, but I'm willing to vote on a link of omission if I'm given a reason to.

-Debate is a game, but I don't think cheaters should always lose. Always following the rules of debate takes away the fun. Tell me why cheaters should lose.

-Trigger warnings and generally not okay behavior: if you have a case that involves sensitive material in any form, you should add a trigger warning. If you choose to add a trigger warning, you need another option for a case if the material triggers someone. If you fail to provide another option, you will concede the round. I will not allow you to make this space unsafe for anyone. That being said, if you misgender someone and/or are racist/ sexist/ homophobic /transphobic /general bigotry, I will stop the round, vote you down, and tank your speaks. Quite frankly, I'm tired of extremely rude behavior being allowed in debate, and for debaters to have to fight to be treated with kindness and empathy, I will not submit to the current narrative.

Speaker points:

I generally think speaker points are a terrible way of determining success; my rules are:

30 - I think you should win this tournament

29-29.9- little to no criticism

28-28.9- few strategic issues

27-27.9- more than a few issues or multiple critical errors

26 or lower- you owe someone an apology

I default to 28 for the loser and 28.5 for the winner unless I feel compelled to think about it harder.

Bottom line:

-Do whatever you're comfortable with and do it well. If you don't make an effort to get better, you're wasting everyone's time

Fred Robertson, retired teacher and speech and debate coach---lives in Omaha, Nebraska

I coached at Fremont High School and Millard West High School for the bulk of my career, retiring in 2013. I guess I am semi-retired since I do assist in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Omaha Marian High School for coach Halli Tripe, and I still judge on the Nebraska circuit fairly regularly. I also direct and teach at my non-profit, Guided by Kids, along with Payton Shudak, a former state champion Lincoln-Douglas debater at Millard West. At Guided by Kids, we offer free speech and debate instruction, as well as encourage community involvement, for 5th-8th graders in the Omaha metro area. I also ran my debate camp, the Nebraska Debate Institute, every summer from 2004 to 2020.

During my career, I served on the NFL/NSDA Lincoln-Douglas wording committee for over 10 years, and I was happy to be admitted to the NFL/NSDA Coaches’ Hall of Fame in 2015. Being in the same group as J.W. Patterson, the late Billy Tate, Lydia Esslinger, and Kandi King—to name just a few of the people in that Hall who have been or continue to be incredible individuals and educators-- is a great honor.

I judge Lincoln-Douglas debate more than anything else, but I will include Public Forum, Policy, and Congress as I have been used in those events as well.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

One thing that distinguishes me from other judges is that I expect quality speaking. That means you ought to be looking at me and speaking with inflection which shows understanding of what you are saying, even if you are reading evidence. I am tired of watching students read to me, even though they are delivering their cases to me for the tenth time. That’s simply bad speaking.

I am not a fan of speed when you can’t be at all clear. I’ll just say slow down and if you don’t, it’s your own fault if I don’t flow arguments or understand what you are saying. In debate, less can be more if you learn to choose arguments and evidence wisely. Too many LD debaters are adopting the “kitchen sink” style of debate—throw as much nonsense as possible and then claim drops as critical to how I should judge the round. Usually, that isn't a successful strategy when I am judging.

Lots of theory arguments made in LD are lamentable at best and would be railed against by policy judges who know what a good theory argument should be. I think that sums up my attitude towards 90% of the theory arguments I hear in LD rounds. That doesn’t mean theory arguments should never be run. What it means is that I usually see these arguments run in rounds in which an opponent is doing nothing theoretically objectionable, but nevertheless I’m stuck watching someone who has been coached “to run theory” always because it’s "cool" or who has made this bad choice independently. In these rounds, I am bored by meaningless drivel, and I’m not happy.

I enjoy debate on the resolution, but that does not mean critical approaches (critiques, or the K, or whatever you want to call it) cannot be appropriate if done well. I enjoy seeing someone take a critical approach because they genuinely believe that approach is warranted because of a resolution, or because of an opponent’s language in reading case or evidence (but there are limits—sometimes these claims of a link to warrant a critique are dubious at best). or because the debater argues the issue is so important it ought to be valid to be argued in any debate. I’ve voted for many critical cases and approaches in LD and policy over the years. If I see that approach taken skillfully and genuinely, I often find these arguments refreshing and creative. If I see that approach taken for tactical reasons only, in a phony, half-baked way, however, I often find myself repulsed by critical arguments posited by students who appear not to care about what they are arguing. I am sure many ask "How do you determine who is being genuine and who isn’t?" 40 years of teaching and coaching have made me an expert judge concerning matters like this, but I do admit this is largely a subjective judgment.

Telling me what is offense/defense and what I must vote on regarding your claims regarding these distinctions has always bored me. Tell me in a clear way why an argument your opponent has made does not matter, or how your answer takes the argument out. Using the jargon is something you’ve learned from mainly college judges (some college judges are quite good, but my generalization is solid here) but, at 66, I’m not a college judge. I feel pretty much the same way about the often frenetically shouted claim of “turns” aplenty. Settle down and explain why your opponent’s argument actually supports your side. I may agree.

Other stuff—fine to ask me some questions before round about my preferences, but please make them specific and not open-ended to the point of goofiness. Asking me “What do you like in a round?” is likely to lead to me saying “Well, I’d like one of you to speak like Martin Luther King and the other to speak like Elie Wiesel; or perhaps bell hooks and Isabel Wilkerson---but I doubt that’s going to happen.” Please be on time to rounds and come with a pre-flow done. Don’t assume I’m “cool with flex c-x and/or prep time.” If the tournament tells me I have to be “cool” with those rules I will be, but if I haven't been told that, I'm not. Ask me if you can speak sitting down. Of course I accommodate needs to do so, but often this is just done by speakers because it’s too dang hard, I guess, for you to stand to speak or do c-x. I find that perplexing, but if you ask, in a nice way, I may say “Oh, what the heck. It’s round five and everyone’s tired.” You should bring a timer and time yourself and your opponent; keep prep time also. I’d rather flow and write substantive comments rather than worry about timing.

A final word—I still love judging Lincoln-Douglas debate, and especially seeing new debaters who add their voices to this activity. It’s also a joy to see someone stick with the activity and keep getting smarter and better. Too often, however, I see very intelligent novice debaters who deteriorate in speaking skills as they advance through varsity LD. All I can say is that with the very best Lincoln-Douglas debaters I judged over a long and still-continuing career, that did not happen. Jenn Larson, Chris Theis, Tom Pryor (blast from the past for Minnesotans who remember that incredibly witty and brilliant guy), and Tom Evnen come to mind. I am old, yes, and I’m not “cool” according to many who would judge judges nowadays, but I am straightforward in telling you who I am, and I will never tell you anything other than the truth as I see it in an LD round I judge.

Public Forum:

Read my LD stuff to get the picture. I’m tired of continual claims of “cheating” in Public Forum. Slow down, read actual quotations as evidence and choose them wisely so they constitute more than blippy assertions.

I have no bias against PF at all. Loved coaching it and had many high-quality teams. A great PF round is a great debate round. Make sure to give me a sound “break it down” analytical story in the summary and final focus and you will be ahead of the game with me. Stay calm and cool for the most part, though of course assertive/aggressive at times is just part of what you should do when debating. It’s just that I have seen this out of control in far too many PF rounds, especially in Grand C-X, or Crossfire, or whatever that misplaced (why have c-x after the summaries have been presented?) abomination is called.

Policy: Love the event, though it was the last one I learned to coach fairly well. If I’m in a round, I usually ask for some consideration regarding speed, just so I can flow better. If you read my LD paradigm, you can see where I most likely stand on arguments. If I happen to judge a policy round, which is fairly rare, but does happen—just ask me good, specific questions prior to the round.

Congress: I usually judge at NSDA districts only but that of course is a very important congress event. I have coached many debaters and speech students as well who were successful in Congress, though it was never a first focus event with the bulk of students I coached. I like to see excellent questioning, 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 congresspeople extending and elaborating on arguments wisely, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. It’s wise for you not to do a lot of goofball parliamentary maneuvers. That’s just not good strategy for you if you want to impress me, and I most often end up as a parliamentarian when I do judge Congress, so overall impression becomes very important to how I rank you. I’ve seen some great congressional debate over the last 30 plus years I’ve judged it, but most of the time, I’ve seen too many repetitive, canned speeches followed by non-responsive rebuttal speeches. If you do what I prefer, however-- which is the opposite of that kind of “bad Congress”-- you can do fairly well.

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?).

Preferred Pronouns: They/Them

I did LD debate for two years of high school and graduated from Norfolk Senior High. I ran some kritical cases in those two years but never full K's so I'm not as familiar with them as other judges. I'll listen to them but just know that you will need to do a little more work in round for me to vote for them. In addition to this, I am a more traditional judge, in the way of if you opt to run a nontraditional case, you will need to do more legwork in round to make me buy it and vote for you.

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

Speaks - If you make me laugh it's an automatic 30 speakers points, otherwise I tend to operate off of typical scoring in which it is based on your ability to speak clearly as well as make coherent arguments.

General: I try my best to vote off what is heard in round. Whatever is presented to me in round and on the flow is what I will evaluate the round through. I like good clash but please be respectful during round. Please engage with each others arguments and don't just read a page of cards and expect me to vote based on that. Also I'm pretty open to most arguments and positions unless it's actively problematic.

Speed: I flow on paper. That being said I can keep up fairly well with fast paced reading, but I have an audio processing disorder to consider when the speed exceeds a certain level. I don't like spreading and cannot flow it. If you chose to spread in front of me please keep in mind there's a fair chance I won't be able to write down all the arguments you say which can harm you later in round. Use this information as you will and also make sure if you are reading fast it isn't exclusionary to your peer.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

Email: dschulz1146@gmail.com

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

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

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

Background:

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

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

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

General judging philosophy (all events):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas:

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

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

Topicality/Theory - 4

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

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

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

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

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

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

LARP- 1

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

K/Phil - 1

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

Policy :

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

CP/DA/Case 1

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

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

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

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

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

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

Theory 4

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

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

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

K (general) - 1

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

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

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

K affs - 1

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

Framework v K - 4

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

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

Public Forum:

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

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

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

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

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

He/Him

Background:

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

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

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

In general:

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

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

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

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

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

Don't contradict yourself.

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

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

everything i care to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns: she/they

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

(speech drop is fine too)

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

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

—TLDR—

tech>>>truth

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

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

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

——EXPERIENCE——

LD at Lincoln Southwest HS (2019-2023)

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

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

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

Here’s my current NFA wiki:

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

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest HS (2023-Present)

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

—PREF SHEET—

K - 1

Performance - 1

LARP/Policy/DAs/CPs- 1

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - strike

—SPEAKS—

(from Zach Thornhill's paradigm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—— LD ——

Speed:

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

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

Theory/Topicality:

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

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

DA’s/CP’s/PIC’s:

Good with em.

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

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

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

Kritikal stuff:

Good with em, ran em a lot.

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

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

***note for performance stuff:

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

Phil:

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

—— POLICY ——

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

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

—— PF ——

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

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

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

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

——————

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

Hey, I'm Julia, or Jules. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Lincoln East High School in the middle of nowhere Nebraska a couple years ago. I was involved in debate my junior and senior years and only did LD. I'm now a student at UNL double-majoring in Animal Science and Fisheries & Wildlife.

My email is julia.r.zeleny@gmail.com. Include me in file sharing things please. I generally think file sharing is pretty based so I'd recommend doing it especially if you're gonna be spreading.

Debate is fun so keep it fun. No racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. content. Also, you absolutely have to give trigger warnings, no matter how brief and non-descript your graphic content is.

I don't care about y'all dressing nice or standing up and stuff. Do what makes you comfortable.

I mostly ran trad stuff but I have a solid understanding of Ks and how they operate in a round. I'm a sucker for cap bad and ecocentrism. Util is boring as hell, but if you run it well, I'll still vote for it. I don't know much about theory unless it's related to in-round accessibility, though, so don't read me that. If you aren't sure, just ask. I'll let you know if something will go over my head.

I like a good, clean flow so just respond to arguments and don't drop your case, I guess. Sounds pretty easy, right? So I expect everyone I judge to win. :)

But just like have fun and be nice and we'll get along great.

One of my favorite things about being a competitor was being able to debate others that have a friendly attitude and getting to know my opponents. Speaks are kinda ableist bs anyway, so I'll give y'all 30 speaks if you guys just have a nice conversation during RFD and generally are friendly towards each other. :)