37th Samuelson Sweeps At Lincoln East
2024 — Lincoln, NE/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideErin Bell (She/Her/Hers)
Lincoln East '20, Nebraska Wesleyan '24
Experience: 3 Years of PF (2016-2019), 1 Year of Congress (2019), NSDA Nationals '17-19, TOC '19
Conflicts: Lincoln East
You can contact me with specific questions at innerbell22@gmail.com or text 402-890-5548
February 2024 PF Topic:
Please note, I have not judged a debate tournament since 2021. However, I did debate for all four years of high school, so I am by no means a lay judge. I know a decent amount about this topic, but I am not an expert. I want the rounds more focused on narratives instead of line-by-lines. For the sake of running a tournament efficiently, I am going to keep my RFD and ballot comments short so if you or your coach have any questions or concerns about my decision, please don't hesitate to reach out to me at innerbell22@gmail.com (don't judge the email name) or text 402-890-5548.
PF:
Impact Weigh (I cannot stress this enough)
I am going to be looking for clear impact weighting and heavy warranting. Explain to me why I should be voting for you over your opponent (pretty basic stuff but it is super important). In the final focus I will look for framing, impacting weighing, and round story. Give me three reasons why you won the round. Narrative is super important in PF and I encourage you to start outlining your narrative in the rebuttal with impact weighing throughout the subsequent speeches.
Other specifics (from John Holen's Paradigm):
All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense)." ***I am not enthusiastic about having the round come down to evidence. Even if you want me to read your opponents' evidence, it is still a safer bet to win the argument by impact weighing***
Please be civil during cross fire. It makes judging and competing in the debate community more enjoyable and comfortable for everyone. I tend to give high speaker point averages but if you are extremely rude, I will take off speaker points.
Most importantly, have fun :)
LD:
Please treat me like a lay judge. I know very little about how this event works. To be safe, speak slow. I am not going to be prepared for spreading but given my debate experience, I can handle some speed. As a tip, I flow by hand so if I am not writing it means you are too fast. Beyond that, I am looking for round clarity and clear points as to why I should be voting for you. If you give me that and do it well, your chances of winning increase.
As always, be civil and kind. At the end of the day, it's just a debate. I usually give high speaker points, but if you are rude that number will decrease dramatically.
This goes without saying, have fun!
Happy 2024 everyone!
Email: miranda.cannon@gmail.com
Background:
- From Lincoln, NE ; competed in the NE circuit
- Have coached and judged various circuits
- Debated in college
- I graduated from law school in 2023 and am a licensed attorney
Public Forum
Some judges are tech and some are truth - I would say I'm about 60% truth, 40% tech, but ultimately will judge you based on what happened in the round.
Regarding speed: it's fine? I guess? I don't PREFER it obviously, but as long as there is clear signposting we should be good. I'll let you know if it's a problem.
It's PF so if you do some wild K or framework argument I am probably going to be heavily side eyeing you the entire time lol. That's not to say you are barred from doing this in front of me, but I just don't know if it's ever going to really work out that well in a PF round? Idk! Prove me wrong!
I judge novices a majority of the time, and my goal is to HELP you - I don't want anyone to feel bad about a loss, but I will try to educate you on the reasons that it happened! My ultimate goal is for you to walk away with more knowledge than you were coming into the round.
Please email me any cards you specifically want me to see, or physically bring them over to me.
Some general things to keep in mind when debating PF in front of me:
- Make sure you know what the resolution is asking you to do. I often will enter a judgment in default if one side is not adequately fulfilling their burden.
- Make sure your speeches are structured correctly - if they are, it's less likely you will drop arguments! Often the tide turns for me in summary just because a lot of debaters don't do this speech correctly.
I have a passion for debate and will help you with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me between or after rounds, even if I haven't judged you.
Congress
I love a good speaking style but the number one emphasis must be solid arguments. Speaking loudly and with energy is awesome but it isn’t a good substitute for making unique logical arguments.
Sources
Use professional sources. I typically like to hear their qualifications (professor at Harvard, etc.), and year. I would make sure you have your sources accessible in case a debater challenges your sources. When someone challenges your sources, and you have them available to support your claim, it makes you look really prepared. At the same time, if you end up using the same source for several points throughout your case, please mention that you're still using the same source, because otherwise, I will assume that later point simply didn't have a source associated with it at all.
Refutation
Refute your opponents. If you aren’t refuting, you aren’t really debating anything. This is a debate event, not a speech event. The further and further the debate on a bill goes on, the more and more refutation I would like to hear. by the 12th speech, I really don't want to hear any points that aren't at least in some way associated with a prior speaker. You should be able to do this by taking notes of the opposing arguments and researching or pointing out flaws. Directly refuting specific points of other representatives respectfully can be done by saying something along the lines of “Representative Smith, when you claim ____, understand _____.” The more you mention other speakers, the more clear it is that you really understood and paid attention to the round.
Rehash
Make sure your points are original. Hearing the same points over and over again by different speakers doesn't add anything to the debate, it just drags it on. If you can't come up with anything new, then you should refute what's been said. If everything seems to have already been refuted, it's probably time to move the previous question.
Presentation
Try not to read off directly from your notes or laptop. Having notes is great but make sure you're not just reading them off word by word in a Congress event. This can be difficult to do in the beginning but if you practice your confidence in this will improve.
Professionalism
Show professionalism. This means avoiding slang, slouching, talking during other speeches, or any type of manner that could be perceived as rude to your peers. Remember that this is a mock Congress so you should be acting as an elected Representative.
Quality > Quantity
While I appreciate being active in the debate, giving the most speeches isn't going to necessarily make you rank the best. Quality is over quantity when it comes to giving speeches just to give speeches. That being said if you have a great speech for every bill, that's really awesome. Just make sure you aren't wasting time in the debate with half-effort speeches. There’s no specific number of speeches I’m necessarily looking for in a tournament. Your questions themselves do not get ranked however actively asking questions does show you are participating in the debate and that you care which is very good to see.
Respect
Treat all of your peers with respect. This should be self-explanatory.
Scoring
On Tab, I’ll list what you can do to improve.
6 - Exceptional Speech. I don’t give out lots of these so if you did this you were great. Great arguments, great refutation, great sources, great presentation, great professionalism, and great time.
5 - Great Speech. There was likely a bit to improve, but overall this is something to be proud of.
4 - Above Average Speech. Good work, look at my tips and you’ll be placing in no time.
3 - Decent Speech. You got the hang of it, check to see what you can improve
2 - Alright Speech. You have a good bit of room for improvement.
1 - Something’s not quite right. There’s some work to do.
Overall, if you’re scoring on the lower side, it’s not a reason to feel bad. Look at the advice your judges give you, practice, and you will improve. If your judges are ranking you lower it’s not because they don’t like you or are trying to be mean, but they want you to succeed. If they tell you it was an awesome speech when in reality it needs some work, it’s not going to help you grow as a debater and ultimately that’s the goal of giving feedback.
Have fun
If you mess up, don’t worry about it, just keep doing your best.
Public Forum
Hi! email: rodneyedwards402@gmail.com
Former School: Millard North High School (Omaha, Nebraska)
Competition Record: Competeted in LD, Congress and Extemp for 3 years. Qualified to nationals my senior year in the House.
Judging Record: Judged Congress at Nationals in Prelims and Sems. Judged local Nebraska PF and LD Circuit for 5 years.
Congress
-Direct clash is critical. You are not speaking in a vacuum.
-I don’t care about in-depth explanations about who you’re citing as long as you’re citing it truthfully and the warrant is there/true.
-Make your speeches interesting by actually telling me something new or important.
PF
I'm pretty comfortable in just about any round. I'm open to voting for unorthodox arguments, as long as they're fleshed out and weighed well. Weighing your arguments should be your go to in front of me. Speed shouldn't be an issue. If there is an evidence issue, address it in the round. I'm not morally opposed to theory in PF, but it better actually be abusive.
LD
I'm pretty familiar overall with the format and argumentation styles. (Theory, T, Phil, CP's...) Try not to get hyper-specific with any jargon. Please send me docs and tell me if you didn't read certain cards. I enjoy hearing interesting philosophical arguments, and I don't like tricks. I'm open to different types of arguments as long as you explain well what the role of the ballot is supposed to be. I default to a "competiting worlds" paradigm. If you want me to vote for something, tell me and argue why. I'll usually always disclose. If there is any likely tech issue, try to inform me before the round if possible, but I will be understanding if something happens in round.
If something's not addressed here, feel free to ask before the round!
She/her
Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest
Debated for 3 years on NE circuit
I don’t like speed so please slow down
I don't like theory and progressive arguments but I will evaluate it as best as I can
I especially don't like theory in PF :)
As a Black judge please do not have any kumbaya (easy solvency) racism arguments. If you run racism, you need have clear links & warrants
Assume that I am not well versed in the topic so explain everything.
USE MUST TAKE PREP TIME TO READ EVIDENCE!
If you don't have a clear link, you don't get access to your impacts
I prefer if second speaker rebuilds in their rebuttal, but if you have good coverage/ cross analysis/ rebuild in summary you won't be penalized
I am not huge on card dumps and numbers being thrown around; if you want me to buy into your card/argument, I expect you to explain what the number or card means. Tell me why I should be voting for you based on your evidence (you need to do more than cite the name). Please do not misconstrue your evidence
(!!!) IMPACT- some of the best rounds are lost because teams do not impact (weighing is equally as important, make the decision for me). I absolutely hate lazy impacts such as extinction, climate change, & recession (having big numbers doesn't mean you'll win the round). Be creative!
I am here to make sure everyone has a fun, safe and exciting experience with debate. Any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc arguments will not be weighed in the round.
If you have any questions at all, just ask! I am open to helping anyone with their debate skills and ideas, no matter your success or failure. You can reach out any time, regardless if I have judged you or not :)
Good luck!
General notes:
- 3 years of debate experience in PF, Congress, and LD, congress national semifinalist. 3 years of judging and a bit of coaching as well.
- She/her pronouns, you can also just call me judge or Adi
- Don't be sexist, racist, etc. It will kill your speaker points and arguments.
- Generally, be nice and polite! Please normalize content warnings for touchy subjects.
- NO SPREADING. I will stop flowing and cross my arms. I will also yell clear and be really annoying about it. I hate it. Keep speed no more than about 7/10.
- I don't flow cross for arguments, but it can help/hurt your speaker points.
- I will not weigh arguments or impacts without sufficient, credible, real (!), sources. Analytics aren't my thing.
- Have fun!
PF:
- I know I'm the minority in this, but I actually don't feel strongly about disclosure. I'll probably vote on the small school response if it comes down to it, but every round is different.
- I will listen to any type of argument (theory, whatever) and impacts (yes, even extinction). Not a huge fan of these nontrad or extreme arguments, but it's not an auto drop.
- If you like to call for cards, SET UP A SPEECH DROP/EMAIL CHAIN AHEAD OF TIME. I'm not gonna sit there while both sides waste time calling for 40 cards just to look at them for 5 seconds and never mention it again. I will start dropping speaks.
- I’m like 70% truth and 30% tech. If you want to convince of something weird, its possible, but I'll default to truth if you don't meet a high standard.
- 2nd summary and final focus are not places for new arguments. There should be lots of weighing and analysis.
LD:
- Mostly the same stuff as PF so see above!
- I don't know must of the LD specific lingo, but I'll listen to whatever! Just be sure to explain it. Pretty open minded here, just don't be abusive. I want the debate to be fun, accessible, and interesting. You can always ask me questions before round.
- I don't have a tolerance for speed. 7/10 max. 5-6/10 comfortably. I don't care if you send me the doc or not - don't do it. I will vote on speed theory. I'll probably auto-drop if I can't flow it. Just don't do it please!
General
- Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round. This includes body language, tone, and gestures. Being professional is just as important as your arguments.
- I do not understand K's or Theory. I dislike when debaters try to bring LD or Policy styles into public forum.
PF
I am not okay with extreme speed. This is not policy debate. Make sure you are speaking clearly and you are more in-depth in your arguments. If you spread, I will not be able to write down what you are saying.
All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).
I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks firstdoes not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.
Send speech docs @ britneymeints19@gmail.com. I would especially prefer if you share it with me via Google Docs but if your school does not utilize GSuite no worries!
General
- Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
- I have some difficulty hearing, so I would appreciate it if you send speech docs! I will also bump speaking points if you send speech docs.
- I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
- Email: blmeints1@gmail.com or bmeints@lps.org
PF
I can handle some speed however (within reason, i.e. no spreading), I am out of practice, so if you are going to talk fast make sure you are speaking clear and you are more in-depth in your arguments.
All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).
I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.
Congress
In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!
Hi all! My name is Loc Nguyen (he/him/his) and I am a junior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in Computer Science & Math.
--
Experience:
Competing
2018-2022: Public Forum Debate at Lincoln Southwest High School
2023-Present: NFA-LD (and some NDT/CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln [Nuclear Posture, Artificial Intelligence]
Coaching
2022: Lab Instructor at NDF
2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School
--
IMPORTANT:
The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and an anonymous opt-out with a backup case or contention. I am okay with most arguments, but be mindful of your opponents.
--
General:
Top-Shelf: I view debate as a game and my job is to evaluate who wins the game. I am normally tech over truth, however, I'm pretty stupid most of the time so judge instruction is key. I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implication. Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision.
--
Evidence Exchanges:
I think debaters need todo some form of evidence exchange; I've sat through enough rounds of evidence ethics violations. Please send speech docs before you speak and, at a minimum, send all pieces of evidence you plan on introducing in your speech AND make sure that your cards are actually cut. I personally preferSpeechDrop over email chains. If we have to do an email chain, the subject of the email should have the following format, or something close to it: "Tournament Name - Round # Flight A/B - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)" Please add BOTH nlocdebate@gmail.com and lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.
--
PF:
Rebuttal: Number your responses, they're pretty helpful. Second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses.
Summary/Final Focus: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments over mass card dumping). Defense isn't sticky; you have to extend it in first summary and I'll flow the responses through, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about; extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Please weigh and weigh comparatively. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary.
Prep: You must take prep time if you are reading or calling for evidence.
Speed: I'm okay with speed, however, that doesn't mean I always enjoy fast rounds. I won’t be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear.
"Progressive" PF:
1) Theory: Perhaps my views will change as I continue to judge more debates or once PF reaches more clear-cut norms for the event. I believe theory has its place in debate. My general thoughts are that disclosure is good as well as open-sourcing and paraphrasing is bad.
2) K's: I have limited experience listening to and judging K’s as well as debating them in college. I'll be willing to listen to them in PF, however, time constraints in PF would probably limit you from engaging in good K debate. Err on the side of over-explanation if you are pursuing this route; I probably don't know your literature. Some kind of material action in the alt is probably good, but I'll leave K articulations and the debate up to you.
--
LD:
Pref Sheet
LARP/Policy - 1
K - 2
Phil - 4
Tricks - Strike
I occasionally judge high school LD, but I don't coach LD. Don’t expect me to always be up to date on circuit norms since I don't judge the event frequently. Defer (mostly) to my PF paradigm if you want to get more of a sense of how I’ll probably evaluate the round, but I’ll be receptive to whatever. In high school I was exposed to a lot more traditional LD from my teammates, but my competition experience in NFA leans policy. Take that as you will. That being said, I’m willing to listen to anything as long as it’s well warranted and implicated and explained well enough for me to vote on it. If I don’t understand it well enough to vote on it, I won’t.
--
If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me at nlocdebate@gmail.com before and after tournaments, and I would be happy to answer them.
General Overview:
***If you are running any sensitive arguments, or even if you think your arguments may be sensitive, please provide a content warning before the round begins. I think this is vital to creating a positive environment in the debate space. If you feel you are not comfortable engaging in a round due to sensitive content please feel comfortable letting me know and we can figure out what to do next.***
Did PF & Congress for 2 years; qualified for gold toc my only varsity year. Millard North HS (22') did a year of NFA-LD.
Currently doing political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
He/Him/His
be respectful, please. We are an inclusive space.
Please make an effective way of sharing evidence if called for. I want speech docs for constructive.
Add me to the email chain: arnavrishi7@gmail.com ( I want the speeches in the email chain) Makea speechdrop
Email me if you want an extended RFD or any questions in General.
Vote Squo on presumption if the round is a wash. (hope it does not resort to that)
Auto drop for being homophobic/racist/sexist/queerphobic.
- FRAME THE ROUND!!!! I don't want to decide which impact I like more
- Tech > Truth. I'm Tabula Rasa but my BS detector is pretty good too.
- If you want me to look at your opponent's evidence, call it out in your speech
- No sticky defense. If it's dropped and you wanna go for it, extend the warrants. I'm not going to do it for you
- I can do basic cross-application of arguments (not the same thing as warrant extension). That also means contradictions deck overall offense.
- I like Double binds or "Even if" argumentation
- Technical genius will be rewarded with speaker points. Example: Non-uniqueing your argument if it's turned so you can kick it
- Warrant debates are the best debates. Evidence is good and necessary but you shouldn't hide behind it.
- Speed is fine but clarity is required. I'll yell clear a few times. If you go fast, you better use up all the time.
Public Forum: I am a typical Flow Judge and have topic knowledge. Please do not think I will make a decision based on my knowledge.
I am good with flex prep, if you guys want to skip cross for like an extra minute of prep is also fine.
NO Debate math in all forms.
I will not make args for you, so tell me where to vote.
ways to get my ballot:
1. Extensions
2. Link chains
3. Impacts
4. Uniqueness debate
Progressive stuff
- I will evaluate theory
- Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in the second rebuttal)
- Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
- if you read a small school warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
- Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to
- extend the interp, vio,and standards through all speeches
- theory shells are valid so as they are not dumb or meme cases. I will need *very* clear warranting on this though. I believe in Disclosure, This is not an excuse to run it as a path to the ballot in abusive manners.
Going on to weighing..... I do not want to hear extend so and so card name. I want you to develop the card itself. And do not use buzzwords like "scope" or "magnitude" if you do not know how to use them.
Onto evidence ethics, I do not want to see improperly cut cards and wrong claims a particular card is making. If it is brought up as a voter,It will affect my decision by voting you down. Cut cards properly. please do not power tag. it is no fun.
Be nice to each other during Cross, I understand it can get heated but honestly, you don't get anything out of being a jerk.
I will not be flowing cross, but I will be listening just in case it is brought up during speeches.
If a card seems too good to be true; I may call for the card. Usually, I wouldn't
On to Summary and Final Focus;
Please Signpost as much as you can. Please collapse!!!!
I will not evaluate any new evidence or args brought up in the final focus.
Please tell me where and how I should vote. Remember I will not decide for you.
+0.5 if you disclosed. (hmu before the round!!!)
+0.3 if you started the email chain/speechdrop
Good Debating <3.
Congress:
FLUENCY: Ok so I want you to be fluent and have respect during the course of the round. I would want you to be specific in your args and how you present them to the chamber matters a lot.
Questioning: So, I will be listening to the questions asked and how you respond to them. Be tactful and wary of how you respond. Your answers are essentially an extension of your speech. Treat your answers like that.
Rehash: Your rankings and speaks will be low if you just repeat what your peers have brought to the table. I am a firm believer in that every speech in congress should be meaningful and have something unique. It is a bonus if you restate the point but make it a refutation or make your position stronger.
IMPACT: The impact of your arguments should be clearly stated. If you don't state the impact of your argument, your claim and warrant will be considered filler speech.
CLASH: Clash is an essential part of the round. It should be a large part of your speeches, not counting the authorship or first negative. It should also be evident in the questions that you ask.
Good Debating. <3
I am a Sophomore Political Science student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Public Forum coach for Lincoln Southwest HS.
--> NFA LD w/UNL.
--> '23 grad from Lincoln Southwest High School, NE.
--> 4 years in HS Public Forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important:
**I would like for a speech drop / email chain to be started before round for evidence exchanges; please add me to the email chain: lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com and/or schadlserena@gmail.com.
**I flow on paper so keep that in mind when you're speaking - I may not get everything down so it is important to emphasize important arguments multiple times!
**If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a trigger warning at the top of your case as well as a backup case if someone in the round opts out.
**You must use prep time in order to read evidence from another team! More NSDA Rules are found here, any violations will reduce speaks and will be notified to the tournament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TLDR - lots of yapping in this paradigm, but here's the gist
How I Evaluate Rounds:
**I am more tech over truth. I will evaluate based off of if you extend your evidence/warrants cleanly throughout speeches. I do not bring my outside knowledge into the round and it is up to you to tell me if I should gut check or call for their evidence. The easiest way to win my ballot is if you clearly warrant, extend, and explain your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am not a big fan of blippy argumentation/card dumping - I think good debaters only have to provide a few great arguments on a contention rather than having 7-10 poorly warranted ones.
**47% AFF (31/66) and 53% NEG (35/66)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Forum:
**Theory can be okay in PF, but only run it if you are aware that your teammates a) know what disclosure/paraphrasing is and b) have no contact info on the wiki/other ways they'd like you to contact them before round. I do not think you should be running theory shells against JV or against schools that are unaware of disclosure/paraphrasing norms. I am more willing to vote for disclosure/paraphrasing if both teams are well aware of these norms and know what theory is. (I do think disclosure is good, but you have to prove that to me in-round).
**K's generally don't go well in PF and are run very poorly most times, I think running a framework or framing about things like structural violence, etc. is more applicable to the event. Please be topical and relate it to the resolution!
**I think some individuals gets confused over what is considered a counter-plan and what is not in this event. A reminder that counterplans are directly stating that they should do something OTHER than the resolution. [Ex. if the resolution asked if the US should increase trade relations with the EU, a counterplan would be that they should instead increase trade relations with China]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round Preferences:
*Sign-posting & road maps are a must! I need to know where you are on the flow so that I can write it down.
*Speed: I can handle you spreading as long as you a) have a speech doc and b) your opponents are okay with it. I will dock speaks if you are unclear or if you opponents have to tell you to slow down/be clear multiple times throughout the round.
*Impacts: Please try not to use the 900 mil. poverty card unless you can substantially prove to me that it will happen, I think the card is overused and rarely links to the arguments being made. Extinction impacts I will vote on but it usually needs a framing mech for me to want to vote for it - likewise if you want me to prefer high probability impacts.
Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision, I am honestly not paying attention during this time as I am writing feedback; but it should be a time to find holes in your opponent's arguments. Refrain from asking surface level questions like "what is your impact" and try to go deeper into your questioning. Also, any statements like "that's a new argument" or "you conceded this" should not be talked about in cross - cross-x is not a speech! Lastly, if something important happened in cross, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.
Rebuttal: Frontlining (responding to arguments made on your case in first rebuttal) in second rebuttal is a MUST! I think it is hard to gain any offense on the flow if arguments go un-responded. First rebuttal should be only attacking your opponent's case- don't restate your own case because it wastes your time (unless it's a cross application).
Summary: This is the most important speech in the round so this should be a time when you are telling me why you should win! I personally did a line by line summary, but giving me voters is also a great option as well. The most important aspect though is that you are weighing and telling me why your warranting and impacts are better than your opponent's.
Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary, so please match their voters if they gave any. Line by line is not preferable but at least tell me why you're winning. The final focus is intended to focus the round and give overarching claims and important points that give me a comparison between the AFF and NEG worlds.
**be strategic, find ways to collapse your arguments - try not to go for the whole buffet - pick one or two contentions (if you're running more than 2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD/Policy:
I am not as familiar with this event in the high school context but I do understand basic policy arguments in terms of NFA LD standards. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms. Lots of the way that I will evaluate the round fall under what I have written in the PF section above, but I will also try to adapt to your style.
General:
--I think sending a doc before each speech if you have new cards you're reading (analytics not needed) is a MUST for varsity debaters.
--A lot of times this event tends to be too heavy on card-dumping and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions. If you can do some sort of framework weighing, impact weighing, etc. - it'll be much easier to win my ballot.
--Tricks are a no-go for me.
K's, Theory, Topicality:
--K's are much more applicable to these events than PF, you just need to substantially prove to me that the alt can solve back for whatever bad thing the AFF is doing. Also, if you have some obscure topic lit. with a bunch of big words - please, please, please explain it so I understand.
--Theory is okay with me, just explain to me why this model of debate you're bringing up should be upheld and why it matters. Frivolous theory is not going to go well and I might just not vote on it if it's nonsensical. Also, you should not be running theory just because you know it'll be an easy win and your opponents won't respond well to it -- theory should only be run if there are true abuses.
--Topicality should be very clear as to why the opponent is not relating to the topic --- I also don't want you to run T arguments that are abusive (I think definition arguments such as the abbreviation of USFG could mean United States Faceters Guild is not going to get you anywhere and doesn't show any reason for me to downvote the team)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Points:
--For open pool: 26 (needs work, many crucial mistakes), 27-28 (quite a few mistakes but attempted frontlines/clash), 29 (good argumentation, good clash interaction, few mistakes), 30 (very clear, minimal changes I would make to the speech). Anything below a 26 means something seriously offensive/abusive happened in round. Also being condescending towards your opponents or not abiding by NSDA rules will drop your speaks by 0.5-1pts.
--For middle school / novice pool: 27 (needs work, no clash in round), 28 (quite a few mistakes, minimal clash, but good arguments), 29 (good argumentation, a few mistakes here an there), 30 (very clear, minimal mistakes, clashed well with opponent's arguments). I will not give anything below a 27 unless something very offensive was said in the round. Being condescending towards your opponents will drop speaks by 0.5-1 pts. I am less likely to penalize with lower speaks for not abiding by NSDA rules, but I will warn you for next time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Things to Keep in Mind:
**NSDA allows paraphrasing in-round (PF), but if an opponent asks for the cut card and cites w/ author quals, you are obligated to give it to them! If there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical. I will also drop speaks by 0.5pts.
*Please don't hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round (via email: schadlserena@gmail.com or IRL)! I am open to discussion of how I evaluated. I completely understand some frustration when judges don't vote in a way that you favor and am open to any discussions about any issues you have with my decision (of course, I will not change my ballot after I submit it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Me:
--NFA LD Nationals Double-Octofinalist ('24)
--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate
--Competed at NSDA Nationals in World Schools ('22 & '23)
--Nebraska State Quarterfinalist in PF ('22 & '23)
--Competed 4 years in HS Public Forum on National & NE Circuit ('19-'23)
I have 2 years of experience in LD and 2 years of experience in Policy. I went to Millard South High School.
I ran mostly traditional arguments in high school so if you run high theory debates I fully support it I just need you to really explain your link to the resolution and/or the affirmative and explain your alternative really well.
I don't always remember to time so please remember to time yourselves.
Email: emmagsorrell@gmail.com
Add me to the email chains just because I like to read the unhighlighted portions of cards.
If I hear the same case ran multiple times with pre-fiat education claims I find it pretty unpersuasive.
I also love analytical arguments. I love analytics, it makes me think that y'all are doing the debating in your own head and thinking for yourselves and not just reading cards.
Policy
Affirmative
If you are running a K affirmative, you should still be spending almost all of your 2AC on case. Listening to a critical affirmative is one thing but being able to explain your alternative, link to the resolution and why your pre-fiat impacts have solvency is extremely important to me. Because of this, I find myself skewed against K affirmatives because I have a pretty high solvency threshold. Know your case an explain to me why I vote on it, or else I will vote Negative on presumption.
I like affirmative cases. I'm pretty even Steven on condo arguments, I think if the negative is making contradictory arguments I would buy condo bad a lot more, but at the end of the day it's all up to interpretations.
I find myself liking generic links bad arguments. I find it persuasive to me if the affirmative says "the negative cannot prove how the affirmative specifically triggers X."
I like permutation arguments to be materialized. If the affirmative can specifically show a world with direct interaction between their plantext and the alternative I will almost always vote for the permutation.
Negative
If you are running a K, explain your alternative. I see way too many teams barely talk about their alternative because they argue the links too hard. I will not buy an empty K shell. Tell me what your K does and how your alternative functions/solves.
I love PICs. Literally if you run a case-specific PIC I will probably vote for you.
I read the entirety cards, if the affirmative has bad evidence and negative lets them get away with it, I will be mad and point it out in my notes.
I will probably not vote negative if you have no on-case evidence. You have proved that the affirmative is fulfilling their burden so why should I ignore their entire case with full solvency for a K with a grassroots movements DA. I probably will not buy it unless you are an off-case god.
If you rely on a K or a CP for all of your solvency I am super against flowing this affirmative, that being said I will if it feels necessary. Don't screw up the perm work, that should be the argument you prep out the most on a K/CP. (Hence why I love PICs)
Win the flow. As simple as that.
In terms of your constructive arguments or "original case":
I don't mind "creative" contentions so long as they are properly supported. This means that your primary contentions only need to be tangentially related, so long as you provide a cognizable link to the resolution. It is your opponent's job to raise a valid defense, call irrelevance, or reframe the more important arguments.
This gives you a lot of freedom to implement "more interesting" arguments. However, this is not a pass to present truly abusive or wholly non-topical arguments.
In terms of responding to your opponent's case:
I will vote for whoever wins the flow. Therefore, I like when debater's roadmap clearly and give explicit voters. I don't count roadmaps against a debater's time so long as they are less than 30 seconds.
I will not flow an argument in your favor unless you tell me why I should. Conversely, if your opponent drops a contention completely, I won't flow it in your favor unless you tell me to. I firmly believe that it is the judge's job to flow all arguments, but it is not the judge's job to debate/argue in their mind for you.
Speed:
I personally cannot handle that much speed. I can listen to you when you talk a little fast but, keep in mind a judge can't flow what I can't understand. If you choose to talk fast you have to enunciate your words. If you are talking too fast I will say clear. If you choose to continue at that speed I will say clear again. If I still am unable to flow and understand you then I will drop my pen and stop flowing until I am able to understand you.
Logistics:
Pre-flow before you come into the room. Keep your own time. If you don't already have the time constraints and speech order memorized, make sure to write it down before we start.
Cross-examination/Crossfire:
I don't care if you sit during these. In PF, I prefer teams to alternate asking and answering questions (unless it's a very brief follow-up). If not, a lot of unnecessary time gets taken up by asking/negotiating who is going to take the next question.
Have fun and be civil.
I debated in Public Forum for four years of high school and I’ve been judging for more than double that. I normally only judge Public Forum. If you wind up with me in any other event, something has gone horribly wrong and I’ll give any necessary variations on my paradigm in person.
Public Forum
I focus on evidence and argument over speaking. Speaking will never decide the round for me on a conscious level. However, I still expect good speaking skills. I can understand and flow a fairly fast rate of speech but actual speed reading will result in lower speaking scores and things missed on my flow.
Evidence is important to me. If you’re going to use a specific piece of evidence in the round, I expect you to be able to understand it and elaborate on it if asked. Additionally, I prefer you to rely on and reiterate a handful of cards rather than dozens of cards that are read once and then never reexplained again. I can follow an argument through a round and flow competently, but if you’re listing 25 things by author and year only, I’m going to lose track. Also, I want rationale for why your evidence is better than your opponent’s. “Prefer Johnson 2005” does nothing except leave all the weighing up to me and you do not want that.
I’m open to considering theoretical arguments over evidence, but it must be a very strong argument for me to consider doing so.
As as far as weighing mechanisms, definitions, observations, and the like, if you give them, I expect them to be used. If you read them to me and they’re irrelevant to the rest of your case, you’ve wasted everyone’s time. If your opponent gives any of the above, and does use them, I expect you to respond to them.
On a structural note, I don’t expect the first rebuttal speaker to rebuilt their own case unless something really important happened in cross examination. I do expect the second rebuttal to cover both sides. The summary speech and the final focus should be just that. Do not reiterate every single point from the whole round. Instead, pick a handful of the key issues and elaborate on why you’re winning those.
Lastly, if it does not happen in the round, I will not consider it in my decision. Teams making objectively bad, structurally flawed arguments have won ballots from me because their opponents did not address those bad, flawed arguments during the round itself.
If you have have any questions I’ll be glad to answer them before the round.