Wiki links to see what I'm familiar w running and going for:

Senior year: https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/LincolnEast/BeHo

Junior year: https://opencaselist.com/hsld22/LincolnEast/BeHo

Email chain:benhdebate@gmail.com

Background

I debated at Lincoln East High School debating in PF as a freshman then LD for the rest.

I've consistently broken at and won local and nat circuit tournaments, won various local tournaments, been in late out rounds / finals of various nat circuit tournaments as well as been in top speaker positions, qualified to TOC twice, state finalist my junior year, Debate / District Student of the Year recipient my senior year, ranked No. 1 in the state and state champion my senior year.

Competed at the TOC in LD my junior and senior year with 4 career bids

I'm a flex debater who read mostly K's with a little larping. I've read everything from tricks to theory to phil etc. I run whatever so I'm cool with whatever - don't adapt to me my preferences aren't that serious just run what you're good at so I can judge a good debate

some people who have influenced me / the way I view debate: Amanda Ciocca, Elijah Smith, Joel Henson, Brixz Gonzaba, John Holen, Rose Lampman, Jesse Nguyen, Matthew Gruhn, David Hererra, Vaish, other teammates and coaches

I think debate is a game. Set rules and norms through tricks and theory but don't be morally repugnant, I won't buy any "-ism is good" or "death good" stuff and be a nice person

TLDR

clash over cowardice

tech > truth (however, in a K round I'll buy truth > tech if it's articulated with a decent threshold. I love truth over tech v tricks debates as long as there's still some lbl engagement)

k / k aff - 1 (esp performance or very intricate / creative critiques)

Theory - 1 (hidden / "extempted" or off the doc shells are perfectly fine, I read them and I'm ok w that but if they ask for the interp send it)

tricks - 2 to 3 (I'd prefer to see a few hidden things, have an out that isn't just tricks. I don't like eval after as your SOLE spike but flow checks are legit I guess so I'll vote on it. I want either 5 spikes or 50 spikes and not a silly in between)

Phil* - 1 to 3 (check longer section)

Larp** - 2 to 3 (check longer section)

do what you want as long as it's not problematic

Judging note

Something I've realized over my career is that a lot of judges simply do not put in the effort or care that students deserve. I've encountered a few judges who believe that, just because they're a judge, they are always right. I know that as a judge I can make wrong decisions and I am not above every student and I do not inherently know more than every debater, which is a false assumption a lot of judges seem to have. Because of this, It's my goal to be the best judge I can for you in this round and future rounds. I'm fine with being post rounded and I understand why it happens. If it gets too disrespectful and not about the contents of the debate anymore I will move on from it. However, I understand why important rounds like bubbles or bids can harbor high emotions that result in post rounding and I will try my best to extensively explain every decision I make in a debate. This is not me telling you you're instantly right because you disagree with me, but I will try my best to understand why you believe an argument should've been evaluated differently and explain why I didn't see it that way.

General beliefs / random thoughts

I think debate is a game but how we play it matters. I love performance debate and 4th wall type Kritiks. I have read a very wide variety of performance from playing chicana punk rock to narratives and poetry. I believe that as students we do internalize what we read and hear and that means I love to see debates that say the way we engage in debates matters. This can be non-T k affs, pre fiat under a topical left aff, or k's that indict aff reps and performativity. That being said, try to have a vision of what MATERIALLY changes from the education and rotb/alt you provide because I like 1AR materialism indicts.

That being said I do also enjoy full game type debates (i.e. tricks v tricks) and will not complain about having to judge them. do what you enjoy cause that's all that really matters tbh. Just do what you do and do it well. I'll adapt to you, don't adapt to me.

I think "hack for me bc x" or "hack for the X debater" are fine and I read them. The issue is you need to win a theory of power or causal explanation as to why you should be hacked for. This functionally means it's not hacking and is just an up layered reason to promote the team. This means that it comes second to procedurals (unless you're winning the layering debate i.e. a K aff vs T shell where you're winning impact turns / that the aff uplayers) I will vote for it given you win the theory of power / SUBSTANTIVE reason as to why you should be hacked for not just "bc I'm x"

K's

k v k debate is my favorite. I'm good for literally any lit base BUT you need to do a good job explaining the in round implications of the K bc I won't intervene for you. I'm good with topic links, rep links, word links, etc. any link is a good link BUT long link walls are good. I personally love to see the one off K Strat and that's what I read mostly. if u want alt as floating PIK you need to do the work to explain why you can and why I vote for that. I like the Strat though. also I love performative links being made and brought up in cx or rebuttals. Kick the K properly bc perm on an improper 2nr that goes for something else without kicking the K right is residual offense for the aff that can be weighed against the other off's if they extend the perm. I'm a big fan of in depth Kritiks, esoteric lit bases, unique alts, do literally anything you want to I love seeing uncommon Kritiks. Also, literature backed K tricks are broken and I will vote for them.

List of K's I've read or understand: Academy K, Anthro, Abolition, Absurdism, Activism games, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Beller, Biopolitics, Benatar, Bataille, Borderlands (favorite), Baudrillard, Cybernetics, Cruel Op, Chicana futurism / pessimism, capitalism (Pomo, racial, general), Deleuze (& Guattari), Dark Deleuze, Disability, Eco-anarchy, Enlightenment Phil, Extinction reps, Foucault, Geopolitics, Hardt and Negri, Hoofd, intersectional Fem, Moten and Harney, Neoliberalism, Necropolitics, OOO, Orientalism, Psycho (berlant, Lacan, McGowan) Queer pess, queer aztec worlding, Rights, Saldanha, Speed K, Statism, Suffering reps, Set Col, Security, Surveillance, Semiocap, Terror talk, War metaphors, Western academics, Zizek and probably more that I can't remember.

DA's

I'd rather see disads on case instead of as an off position just because I think it's more strategic unless you have a really good case neg to the aff but you do you. if disads are your Strat I'm down to watch it just really implicate the scenario out and do good metaweighing. I also like seeing K links as disads either as their own off or as DA's on case page. I commonly read opacity or race/gender k links as a disad vs k affs and would love to judge that type of round. just explain the links really well and why I care. (goat 1NC vs K affs is 2 off, K then opacity DA) condo reps are fine you can read a K that indicts extinction but also read a DA that impacts to extinction on case or as an off. I evaluate that as a turn to the aff and not a perfcon or double bind but you can maybe convince me that it is.

CP's

I have a low threshold for 1AR theory VS CCPs, PCPs, and DCPs if the aff says durable fiat / normal means would include the CP method BUT if you say why they can't do that (ground, clash, neg choice, etc) in the 1NC I'll probably lean neg on the fact aff needs to contest the CP method (esp if normal means wasn't specced in cx or 1ac) Generally love CP's though and I'll evaluate no card / one card CP's if they're good. Also I'll judge kick if you tell me. towards the end of my career I read more advantage CP's and am a big fan of an advantage CP versus K affs / Topical k affs

PIC/K's

go for it same as above cp stuff just debate how you want and do it well. I do want a good perm block in the 1NC though or else I will buy 1AR "perm blocks should've been in 1NC" args I won't buy that but still read a pre-empt. Word PIKS are less convincing to me despite that I read them bc it's hard to explain the PIK without linking yourself but that doesn't mean I won't vote on a well written word PIK. overall just win your argument I'd rather see it as an ethos push as a disad to their rhetoric that turns their assumptions. I have a medium-high threshold for pics because most can just be abusive analytics. However, I have a low threshold for analytic pics against a K aff because i think if they arbitrarily defend non topical to a point that's not even directionally topical than you can pic out of a part of the aff and i'll vote on it (just win some form of competition through like process or thesis indicts or a disad on case outweighing the world of the perm)

Theory

I don't care whether the interp is positively worded or negatively worded but a + c/I vs your - interp will be more convincing. I'm cool with frivolous theory and 1AR restarting. just do good. I love 1AR restarts. If you're larping against the K and are getting slaughtered or don't have the right blocks, just restart. I think the 1AR gets one shell without an underview in the 1AC but the 2nr will have a lower threshold for responding to it.

Defaults with theory:

DTD, no RVI (yes impact turns, no rvi even if 1ar restarts), competing interps, but all these can be changed if u tell me to.

no preference in fairness over education but fairness is I/L to edu. I like a good standards debate. 2n (or 2AR if 1AR theory) should be on ONE standard that can be implicated out to other standards. i.e. "I'm going for limits" then impact it out to clash

c/I "ill defend the violation" is fine with me. especially bc against frivolous neg worded interps it's just a good Strat.

I do think fairness will win most the time over education against k affs or weird neg strats.

Tricks

I used to hate them, now I don't and I sometimes read them. I love a good tricks aff BUT the more abusive you are the more I'll love to see a one off K against the aff and it'll be really hard slightly harder for you to win. if the 1NC makes good indicts of reps / tricks / TT model of debate then I'll allow grouping instead of LBL (even if they drop your goofy "must lbl" trick) ONLY if they answer the "must lbl" spike

tricks are a bad model of debate so the K vs them is basically hacking BUT I do also agree that if they drop too much stuff you can win the tricks v K debate with a good 2AR.

more abuse = lower threshold (hiding spikes, "what's an a priori?", "extempted" off the doc spikes in the 1AC, etc)

tricks v tricks debates are cool though. tricks v larp w things like definitional a priori's or log con are also fun. I love Phil tricks and hijacks so read those if ur good at it.

its fine if you say "What's an a priori" one time just to troll idrc

Phil

Mostly read butler, Pettit, Kant, emotivism, determinism, internalism, paradoxes, various hijacks, levinas, these are all ones. etc. reallllyyyy dense Phil that isn't one of the previous will probably require more work for you to explain BUT I'll try my best and am very willing to watch that debate.

* notes

*The Phil I'd prefer to see is Hijacks, Kant, Determinism, Skep, or tricksy type Phil, 4-5 for contracts, levinas, etc.

**I can judge a full larp debate, it'll just bore me and I'm probably not the best for it. a solid counterplan + T versus the plan aff is a good strategy in front of me. plz read Kritik against the plan <3, LD does not require a plan but I'm impartial, if they want to defend the political then I'll buy politics bad links p easily to things like queer pess etc. I will still vote on T-implementation though.

Speaks

I care more about strategy and tech of your speech over clarity. If your spreading is insanely unclear though your speaks will suffer. I disclose speaks and will general give 29+ worst you'll get with horrid spreading is like a 28.5 if you lose 29 if you win

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.

she/her/hers

Lay judge.

-

I do not vote on disclosure, but I will vote on predictability if the case is not on the wiki.

-

For speed, I start to cap out at 350 wpm. Sharing cases is good for evidentiary reasons. I'd prefer not to do an email chain.

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes, AI) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

1. You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards.This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
2. I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
3. Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
4. Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier. I've especially noticed the more pedantic impact/internal links/interps/etc. the less likely I am to give it a bunch of weight.

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

I've increasingly noticed that heavily posturing is becoming less persuasive to me; it looks much better to frame the debate through you being ahead on specific arguments (ie evidence/warrant quality, impact weighing, etc.) then posturing about the round writ large. Especially with the way I evaluate debates, the last minute ethos/pathos push is by and far less important than writ large "I'm soooooo far ahead" that can get articulated on the flow to shape my ballot.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo isusually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

LD

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

PF

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2024

Contact info: Jess, They/She, jessodebato@gmail.com

Speech drop > Email

Quick Version :p

1 = Strike me; 10 = Pref me

Tech over Truth

K-Debate & LARP = 10

Phil = 9

Topicality = 8

Theory = 6

Trix = 2

Long Version :/

Experience:

- Queer+ Blasian

- Policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD).

- Read phil and k

I am a queer Asian/Black person. To be objective, requires me to acknowledge my social location. I read Reid-Brinkley’s essay on Debate and racial performance last summer and was struck by so many things that were purely true. I want those in debate to not have to perform something that they are not. Being a black debator doesn’t mean you have to read Afro pess or a queer debator doesn’t mean you have to focus only on queer issues. But in the flip side, I see how insidious debate is with the privileging of extinction level impacts that continuously abstract debators from the resolution and their embodiment. This is where I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to, your bodies, minds, and wishes precede those of what is expected of you to get the ballot. Being Tabula rasa, to me, means to be anything but a blank slate, it requires understanding a multiplicity of difference that integrally affects how I adjudate the round - “the thing then becomes it’s opposite”, subjectivism turns to objectivism.

Current paradigm (2022-current) ~~~~

Preferences are 1 (low) - 10 (high pref). X marks the spot.

Stock/Util affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

Notice how I put stock “LARP” affs on the same level as K affs. I think I have equally voted for both styles of argumentation equally. I have seen some fantastic Stock affs that fundamentally interact with K’s and explain the K’s theory of power better than they do. It’s not about what kind of argument, but how you have weaved what you are defending to attack your opponents stuff. For example, I watched an stock gun control aff hit a queer rage aff, whereas the gun control aff used the theory of criminalization of urban areas to impact turn social death - that absent threat of force, the criminalization of entire populations in urban areas, which include queer people would have no justification.

Kritiks/K-Affs: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-X-10

I love K debate that is explained well! Give me good links, clever argumentation that interacts with your opponents arguments/assumptions! I love queer pess, Afro pess, historical materialism ~ new developments in K lit. As long as you make your arguments apparent and not obscure to the point that your opponent doesn’t know what’s going on, then we’ll be good.

Theory: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I will and have voted on topicality before, but I also understand how FW debate has been used to silence alternative styles of debating. What this means is that I’ll evaluate T on offense/defense - as long as you give me a clear picture about why the standards are important to fairness/education and how these benefits outweighs any of the aff’s impact turns on the T she’ll, then we’ll be good.Please don’t be blippy - T debate often happens like so, just make it clear and It’ll do you lots of good.

I’m open to lots of diff t stuff - such as the Reid-Brinkley Three tiered process stuff that’s going around, accessibility arguments, disclosure.

DA/CP: 1-2-3-4-5-6-X-8-9-10

I was taught stock policy by this one funny norfolk mentor, who always ranted about the Stock issues With that being said, I’ll evaluate CP/DA akin to how policy debators in the past have debated it. I’m cool with that.

Trix: X-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Trix are anti-educational - due to an over focus on semantics that is exclusionary to ELL debators, and a heavy emphasis on technique that is exclusionary to debators with dis/abilities, I won’t evaluate trix.

Okay so note on spreading - there’s a distinction between speed reading and spreading that is found on the nat circuit. I’m leaning more towards pretty quick speed reading - I may miss things if you spread. Most of all make sure your opponent isn’t excluded in your in round practices. I used to hate spreading because of not being able to understand things, but now listening to circuit debators I really think it’s just a clarity thing cuz debators were just not being clear.

Old Paradigm (2019-2021)~~~~~~~~

policy read this -

I'm cool with k's/k aff's/or very stock policy debate.

I have a leaning towards K's, but equally said, I love it when stock policy aff's have substantial meaningful engagment with K. I'll vote for a da, t, really whatever you give me. Sorry this is short, but i can answer more questions and also i forgot to write a paradigm.

If you were to read anything on my paradigm please look at these three things first.

1) No spreading at all. Here's why: Debate has become a hyper-competitive activity. Debaters don’t get better at uncovering the truth or debating, they become better at winning debates. The hyper-competitiveness of debate has pushed the development of itself toward a technique-orientation. In the final analysis, the rounds are not about the truth and passion of your arguments, it’s about how many arguments you can put down, how fast you debate, analytical tricks you hide in your case, and your ability to extemp answers on the spot. This high standard of professionalism and prioritization of technique over truth leads to an exclusionary space. It constantly skills checks debators – excluding debators with disabilities and shutting out truthful arguments that don’t conform to norms. As a judge, I am obligated to disincentive ableism in all its manifestations. I want to change my community for the better. Although spreading is a norm in both LD and Policy, in order for debate to be a truly educational and inclusive space I must be diametrically opposed to it. Moreover, spreading excludes debators who don't speak english as a first language. I had many friends who weren't considered "successful" in this activity because they couldn't keep up. With this in mind, I am wholly truth over technique. Even if you don't word an argument in the most fluent way, I will still give it credence when I see you try your best to explain something to the fullest. What matters to me in debate, is not how many arguments you can dish out, but how you carry through with your arguments, how you defend them, and how you develop them within the round.

2) I have a high standard for quality of evidence. If you read to me a bunch of extinction impacts with highly suspect warrants, I will, on face, throw the impacts away. Here's why: Extinction impacts have become oversaturated in the debate space in both policy and LD. Once again we return to the topic on how debate has become a hypercompetitive activity - it's easy to win off extinction impacts when you can prove the tiniest bit of a risk, even if there is little or no connection between the resolution and the actual terminal impact. This trend in debate suffocates the real and harmful oppression impacts that affects a plethora of disadvantaged groups. In so far as low probability extinction impacts could always be used to make light of tremendously harmful oppression concerns, I have the obligation as an educator to view them with more scrutiny. My requirement is this - in order to have me evaluate your extinction impact you must have tremendously high uniqueness and deliver to me a crystal clear scenario-link chain. I will be flowing every single sentence of your warrant.

3) If you are gonna make a bunch of turns and analytics, they must be as clear as day. I want your arguments to be fully developed. Please explain fully how something is a turn, rather than merely labeling it as one. If these turns and analytics aren't sufficiently warranted I won't be able to evaluate them.

LD Debate -

General: I try my best to vote off what I hear in round and to minimize my biases. Even though debate is competitve, be cordial with eachother. Hostility is anti-education and I will intervene if I have to. Genuine engagement with your evidence (don't card dump!) and one another is really important to me.

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

Tricks: Blippy arguments make me sad :(.

Affirmative: I think debates are better when Affs are resolutional, but am open to kritial affs.

Topicality: I have a higher threshold in terms of actual abuse, but the opponent has to give reasons as to why potential abuse is bad. I'll vote for topicality based on what ya'll bring to the table.

Kritiks: Those are fine as long as they are coherent. Explain your link, impact, and alternative well to your opponent.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

Pronouns: she/they

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

(speech drop is fine too)

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

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

—TLDR—

tech>>>truth

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

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

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

——EXPERIENCE——

LD at Lincoln Southwest HS (2019-2023)

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

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest HS (2023-24)

Head Coach at Lincoln Northwest HS (2024-Present)

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

—PREF SHEET—

K - 1

Performance - 1

LARP/Policy/DAs/CPs- 1

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - strike

—SPEAKS—

(from Zach Thornhill's paradigm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—— LD ——

Speed:

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

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

Theory/Topicality:

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

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

DA’s/CP’s/PIC’s:

Good with em.

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

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

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

Kritikal stuff:

Good with em, ran em a lot.

Lit I've run and I'm familiar with: Fem/FKJ, Biopolitics & Necropolitics, Cap, Set Col

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

***note for performance stuff:

Performance stuff is dope. I’ve seen/ran poetics, music, story-telling, dance, and narrative-based performance & am def willing to vote on it if you do the work for it.

Phil:

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

—— POLICY ——

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

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

—— PF ——

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

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

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

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

——————

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

Last Revision: December 9th, 2019

*Digital Debate Note (added 5/16/20):

1) I can handle just about any speed in person. The same doesn't hold true for online debate (at least until I get better equipment/get used to it). I hate telling people to slow down, but you should slow down during online debates. I will indicate via the chat function or by interrupting if you are lagging (just as I would say clear).

2) If someone drops out of the round via connection issues, we will pause the speeches.

3) Just like you wouldn't cheat by chatting with a coach during an in-person tournament, don't cheat in online debate.

4) Don't record the round without the permission of the tournament and everyone in the room.

TL;DR

Email for evidence/cases: colwhite54@gmail.com

I’ve coached or debated in just about every event, and I’ll do my best to adjudicate the debate as fairly as I can. Your best strategy is probably to make the arguments that you think would be the best arguments to win the debate. As long as you can do that while being a kind and ethical competitor, then you’re good to go. Respect the other people in the room and don’t be a jerk.

Let me know if you have any questions that aren’t answered by this paradigm.

Commonly asked questions about my preferences on a spectrum (heavily dependent on context - you do you 95% of the time):

Truth over Tech <----------------X---------> Tech Over Truth

• It’s probably not my job to say what’s true, but silly arguments have a much higher threshold of persuasion.

Speed <----X---------------------> NO Speed

• I mostly judge on a local circuit, but assume I can follow unless I say clear/speed.

“Trad” <------------------X-------> “Progressive/Circuit”

• I dislike these descriptors, so try to be more specific with your questions.

Debate the Topic <----X---------------------> Non-T

• I’ve personally read and voted for/against both, but I usually prefer if you debate the topic.

Quality of Evidence <-X------------------------> A Billion Terrible Cards

Number Your Arguments <-------X-------------------> Say “AND” between each card/analytic

Experience

I am the head coach at Lincoln Southeast High School, the former head coach at Lincoln North Star High School, and a former assistant coach at Lincoln East High School. I have been coaching since 2015. I run the Lincoln-Douglas Camp at the Nebraska Debate Institute. In college I won the 2018 national championship in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Forensics Association National Tournament after debating with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for three years. I was one of two American debaters to be chosen for the 2019 Tour of Japan through the National Communication Association’s Committee on International Discussion and Debate’s partnership with the Japan Debate Association. I also coached debate in Shanghai, China during 2018 through a summer fellowship with LearningLeaders. I competed in Nebraska high school debate for 4 years.

Events I most often judge/coach (in order):

HS/College Lincoln-Douglas

HS Policy/CX

HS Public Forum

HS Congress

WSDC (HS Worlds)

British Parliamentary (College Worlds)

American Parliamentary/NPDA (College)

HEnDA (Japanese HS Policy)

Specific Preferences Based on Events

HS LD

I evaluate the framework first and then look at which debater has the biggest and/or most contextualized offense under that framework. If I cannot distinguish your offense from your opponent’s offense, it is difficult for me to assess how the framework operates in the round. You have to tell me why your offense applies to whichever framework we’re using and why your opponent’s offense doesn’t matter or isn’t as important.

Ks are fine, phil is fine, LARP is fine, etc. Just don’t assume I know your lit. Hold yourself to a high threshold of explanation and go for one or two well-developed arguments rather than many arguments that are barely touched on.

Flex Prep: If both debaters are okay with asking questions during CX, then it's fine. I would prefer if you do not skip CX and use the rest as prep time. If you cut CX short, that starts cutting into your prep time.

I will not vote on your short, barely warranted a priori arguments that don’t connect back to a standard. You don’t get an auto-affirm/negate by dunking on silly trick args.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

HS Policy

Refer to the College LD paradigm to answer most of your questions. The only warning I’ll give you is that theory justifications that have to do with the exact format of partner policy debate need to be explained since I usually judge 1-1 policy through college LD. I’m not totally up to date on the cutting edge of thinking about best practices in policy, but that just means you’ll have to warrant your theory args and win them rather than pander to my theoretical biases.

I won’t vote for suicide = good or oppression = good.

College LD (NFA-LD)

Yes, I do want the speechdocs.

I don’t find appeals to the rules persuasive.

Ks are fine - contextualize the links as much as you can. I want to know how the alt functions and differs from the Aff.

I will vote neg on presumption if the aff doesn’t function (I won’t vote for an aff with no solvency because they have a “risk of offense” - you have to win that you have a risk of offense).

I don’t need proven abuse to vote on T or theory and I default to competing interps (unless the Aff wins reasons why the neg does need proven abuse or wins reasonability, but that’s hard to do)

Disclosure theory is probably underrated in college LD.

Do not run full-source citations theory.

Public Forum

Don’t read actual plans or counterplans in an attempt to adapt to an LD/Policy judge. However, because I know what these positions are, I won’t drop you or your opponents because they read something that you thought was a plan/CP but wasn’t. Same goes for Ks/Theory Shells (however, theoretical justifications for things like definitions and observations - framework light - are super encouraged).

Read cards rather than paraphrase if you can.

UNL NFA-LD

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

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

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

1) Tech Over Truth

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

3) Please read a trigger warning if applicable

4) NO NEW IN THE TWO

5) I will give low-speak wins

Public Forum

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

2nd Rebuttal should respond to 1st Rebuttal

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

Grand cross is my favorite speech.

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

I weigh T>K>CP and Case=DA

Lincoln Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

No moral skep- it will drive me up the wall

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

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

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

DO NOT READ A PLAN TEXT IN LD

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