Tabroom.com

NSCTA State Debate

2024 — Lincoln, NE/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Lisa Amen Lincoln North Star None

Anton Angeletti Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 7:26 AM CDT

Anton Angeletti - he/him/his - aangelettidebate@gmail.com

Background: In high school, I competed in public forum for Lincoln Southwest, mostly on the Nebraska circuit. Graduated in 2022, currently a Computer Science + Mathematics major at UNL.

Don't be disrespectful. Safety and inclusivity come before everything else in debate.

GENERAL

I don't coach, so it's best to assume I know very little about the topic

I evaluate on the flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in both summary and final focus.

Rebuild/frontline in 2nd rebuttal, you don't need to in 1st

Summary is the most important speech. I'd recommend collapsing on important arguments instead of trying to bring everything through, but I don't care what structure or strategy you go for as long as it's consistent in the latter half of the round.

Extending evidence: don't just tell me the author's name, tell me what they say and why it matters

If you want something from cross to matter in the round, bring it up in a speech

Signposting is more important than offtime roadmaps (but both are nice)

Tech > truth, unless you're straight up lying

Do the weighing for me, impacts matter more and more as the round progresses

Clash is super important. Make sure you're debating at each other, not past each other

Defense isn't sticky, extend your responses or I won't evaluate them

If you control the narrative for the round, you win the round

The messier an argument gets, the more likely I am to ignore it completely.

Procedural stuff:

Email chains are the best way to share evidence

I won't flow off speech docs, barring tech issues

Time yourselves, as well as each other

If you make an effort to keep the round running quickly, I'll bump speaks

Theory: I'd much rather judge substance than theory/other progressive arguments (doesn't mean I won't vote on it though). Feel free to ask me about it if you're thinking about running an off.

Any questions, just ask me before/after round or email me at aangelettidebate@gmail.com.

Emily Atamov Marian

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: atamovemily@gmail.com

I was a policy and congressional debater with a bit of speech experience.

I'm pretty open argument-wise (except disclosure theory). Go for anything and as long as you lay everything out for me, you should be fine. Don't make me do the work that you should be doing in the round.

Keep your own time please :)

I probably won’t know what the resolution is till the 1ac. Do with that what you will

TLDR: Go for anything. Weigh your args. Be nice. I hate disclosure theory do not read it in front of me

LD: I don’t prefer a specific style but know I am not well-versed in tricks and high-level theory. I see this type of theory more during online tournaments so it shouldn't be that big of an issue during local tourneys. I'm fine with phil and trad rounds. I tend to be a bit more engaged during non-trad rounds.

PF: I never did PF nor do I judge PF that often. I don’t care about performance in pf. You could spread and I wouldn’t dock your speaks (as long as your opponents are cool with this and have the case etc). Just give me clear, concise overviews and thoroughly explain why you won my ballot. I enjoy it when teams make it easy for me, especially in PF. Strike me if you disagree with this

Congress: Kinesics and presentation are important to a certain extent, but if your content is subpar then it won’t matter as much to me. I love good clash in congress and hate rehash with a burning passion. I don’t want to hear three aff speeches back to back about xyz issue because then, instead of being a debate event, it becomes a speech event. I encourage you to be aggressive (yet respectful) during cx!

Flow: I will flow everything in the round and base my ballot on what I see on my flow. I don't flow cx unless you tell me to. Tag team cx is cool with me.

Quality > Quantity

Tech > Truth

Give a bit of explanation on your extensions

Kritiks: I have some experience with k's (biopolitics, necropolitics, set col, cap). I would prefer you to treat me as a lay judge with your kritik, though. Meaning, you flesh out every link. Also, if you have any sort of narrative or poem or something along those lines, please don't spread that. It makes me feel icky !

DA: Explain your disad thoroughly. Fully explain how your opponents link and why it matters. If there's no impact then what's the point?

Speed: I'm fine with spreading. Slow down on analytics or I won’t catch everything. If I yell clear once or twice and you don’t comply, I’ll stop flowing.

Theory: If your opponent doesn't answer this then you win the round just give your voters and I'll flow it. I will not vote on disclosure theory because my jurisdiction begins with the 1AC and ends once I’ve submitted my ballot.

Speaks: Speaks are incredibly arbitrary; I have no set measurement for speaks. I tend to usually give the highest speaks to individuals that I felt were genuinely respectful throughout the round. If you’re rude, you may win the flow but you and your opponent's speaks will prob be like .1 away from each other. Aside from being a decent person, if you give me organized rebuttals that make it easy to write my ballot, you’ll get high speaks. Just make it easy for me and you’ll do well

Basically, just be precise, do all the work for me when explaining your argument, weigh your arguments, and be nice!!

Have fun :)

Miranda Cannon Lincoln Southeast High School

Kobe Cooper Millard South High School None

Abhi Karri Millard North High School

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 7:24 AM EDT

Pronouns: He/Him/His

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

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

Experience:

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

Preferences:

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

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

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

Speech-by-speech notes:

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

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

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

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

Progressive Args:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tricks: I'll pray for you...

Post-Round:

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

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

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

Congress:

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

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill.

Ethan Kimbrough Millard West High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 1:58 PM CDT

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

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

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela Kwambamba Lincoln Southwest High School

Emily Marvin Millard West High School

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School

Dan Nelson Papillion-La Vista High School None

Loc Nguyen Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sat July 13, 2024 at 6:50 PM CDT

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.

Arnav Rishi Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Mon April 1, 2024 at 5:54 PM CDT

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

Andrew Ruchti Omaha Central HS

Serena Schadl Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sat July 20, 2024 at 4:29 AM CDT

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)

Jack Spady Millard West High School

Blaine Traudt Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 8:33 AM CDT

Hi all! My name is Blaine Traudt (he/him/judge) and I am a freshman at UNL.

Background: I debated for Lincoln Southwest in Lincoln, Nebraska (10-12). I competed in Novice Lincoln Douglas my sophomore year and Varsity Public Forum my junior and senior year. I primarily debated on the local Nebraska circuit.

TL;DR:

Assume that I am not well versed in the topic so explain everything.

YOU MUST TAKE PREP TIME TO READ 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 am slightly tech over truth, but mostly indifferent.

I’m not that familiar with progressive arguments.

Trigger warning sensitive content.

Include BOTH blaineTraudt@gmail.com and lincolnSouthwestPublicForum@gmail.com to the email chain.

Be concise and nice for good speaks.

See “Preferences in terms of what's going on in the round” for more info about how the round should go.

Speed is mostly fine but if you are going too fast I will visibly stop flowing.

IMPORTANT STUFF:

The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusivity of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and an anonymous opt-out with a backup case/contention. Example of an anonymous opt-out: Form

PF:

How I Evaluate a Round:

Tech —-X—--- Truth

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.

SIDE NOTE: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments. Running them in front of me is a bit risky as I have a high threshold for progressive arguments. You're probably better off trying to avoid having me evaluate such a round. However, I feel like I would be more sympathetic to these types of arguments if they are necessary or there has been a serious offense in round.

Procedural Stuff:

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain or SpeechDrop as soon as they get into the round if they plan on asking for cards. Whether or not the tournament is online, an email chain makes evidence exchange faster and more efficient. No google docs sharing or locked google docs. Please add BOTH BlaineTraudt@gmail.com and lincolnSouthwestPublicForum@gmail.com to the email chain.

Speaks: If you make an active effort to run the round as fast as possible (quick evidence exchanges, joining the zoom/getting to your room before the posted start time, pre-flowing beforehand, etc.) I'll bump speaks. If you are nice and friendly toward your opponent I will also bump speaks.

Preferences in terms of what's going on in the round:

I appreciate off-time roadmaps, but they don't need to be super elaborate. (5s tops)

I allow speakers to have a 10 second grace period after time is up to finish their speeches. If you go over 10 seconds I will visibly stop flowing and listening.

Rebuttal: You probably should frontline in second rebuttal interacting with any offense read in first rebuttal.

Summary: Honestly, just do whatever and I'll evaluate it to the best that I can. Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments > 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 in the rest of the round. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. If you haven’t started weighing in the round do so NOW.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary speech. Tell me why you're winning!

Cross: I don't flow cross, but if you really want to bring something from cross mention it in your speech.

Prep: If you call for evidence during prep you must stop the timer and both teams must stop prepping while the opposing team pulls up the card for the you to read. As soon as the card is pulled up, time starts again. If this doesn’t happen, speaks will be docked severely.

Speed: Generally I will be fine with whatever as long as I can understand you and flow, however, I can only understand up to about 200-250 WPM. I won't be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear. I'll just stop flowing if you keep going too fast and you might not be very happy.

(most of this paradigm is from Loc Nguyen and Angela Kwambamba so thank you to them)

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

Halli Tripe Marian

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

How I determine rounds:

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

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

General preferences:

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

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

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

- Sign post where you are. Be organized.

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

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

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

Argument preferences:

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

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

LD-specific stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

Speech docs, evidence:

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

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

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

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

Nicole Williamson Hastings

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

Win the flow. As simple as that.

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

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

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

In terms of responding to your opponent's case:

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

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

Speed:

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

Logistics:

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

Cross-examination/Crossfire:

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

Have fun and be civil.

James Wilson Lincoln North Star

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:03 AM CDT

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.

Login to Tabroom

NSCTA State Debate

2024 — Lincoln, NE/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges