hi all! my name is kyzz azucena (she/her) and i am a current freshman at nebraska wesleyan university with a major in psychology while minoring in public health!!

(email: kyzzazu05@gmail.com)

background: i previously debated for lincoln southwest (2020-2024) in public forum. i primarily debated on the local nebraska circuit, but i also competed on the national and nsda circuit.

tldr: always be kind and respectful to your opponents. be strategic on what arguments you go for. always assume i have either none to very little topic knowledge since i don't coach. easiest way to my ballot is collapse arguments with better warranting, explanations and comparative weighing.

public forum:

general: please give a brief off time road map before your speeches. i am typically a tech > truth judge, so i will try my best to evaluate what i have on the flow. please allow me to do the least work possible for finding a path to the ballot. the easiest way to do so is make the round clear and concise. the best way to my ballot is collapsing on arguments you're winning with better warranting, explanations and comparative weighing implications.

evidence exchange: all debaters should always set up some sort of evidence exchange before rounds start. i would like to be on said evidence exchange. do not set this up in the the middle of the round as it wastes time and can be very annoying.

rebuttal: second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses. all first rebuttal needs to do is go down their opponents flow and respond to their arguments made in constructive.

summary/final focus: i know these speeches can be organized in various ways, here are just keep a few things in mind. although i do prefer a line by line summary but do what works best for you!please collapse on arguments that you are ahead on the flow and winning in these speeches. be strategic on arguments you extend. i prefer refine arguments in these speeches rather than card dumping/extending every single argument you made in rebuttal. a few things about this speech: one defense isn't sticky - you must extend it in first summary for me to flow it through or i won't evaluate it for the rest of the round, even if you try mentioning it in a later speech. extend your warrants and give me reasons on why i should prefer your warrants over your opponents. in these speeches please please weigh and do so comparatively!!!!

prep: you must take prep to call or read evidence! i will time you but please be organized and time yourselves as well. i simply will stop flowing if you go over 10 seconds of your time.

speed: speed is okay with me as long as you enunciate and be clear. if you send me a speech doc i won't necessarily flow off the doc i will flow off what i hear - so just be clear and you'll be fine.

theory:

- i'd rather judge a substance pf round but i will evaluate theory arguments to the best of my ability

- generally i believe disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad but i will listen to responses to these shells and evaluate to the best of my ability

- respond to the shell even if you don't know how correctly - do the best you can

- always send me the shell doc

- i believe friv theory is bad, but it should be bad enough that you can beat it

feel free to ask me though if you plan to run an off!

other events: i have very limited experience in all the other events. just do what you do best! i will try to evaluate the round to the best of my ability!

if you have any questions or accommodations needed before the round feel free to email me! if you have any questions with my decision or just want more feedback please, feel free to ask me either in person or you can send me an email! have fun and good luck to all!!

i sometimes debate, most results are viewable here

send all docs to epicgamermoment123123@gmail.com

speaks will be capped at 27.5 if constructive and rebuttal cards are not sent

ask questions!! i'd me more than happy to talk after the round as well

---tldr---

water finds the path of least resistance, just assume i woke up at 8am and showed up to the round. make me vote with the route that is the least amount of work for me

---regular preferences---

debate is a game; having fun > card dumping

nothing is true. everything is tech.

clarity > speed

resolve clashing link-ins and prerequisites

---prog preferences---

set rules and norms through tricks and theory but don't be morally repugnant

frivolous theory doesn't exist -- if it's bad you should be able to beat it

reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA > DTD

General

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

PF

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

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

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

Congress

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

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

--

Experience:

Competing

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

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

Coaching

2022: Lab Instructor at NDF

2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

--

IMPORTANT:

The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and 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 to do 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'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, 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 and NDT 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.

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

--> NFA LD @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

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

--> 4 years in Public Forum @ LSW.

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

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!

**All debaters (including PF) should disclose their AFF/NEG cases and rebuttal cards on the wiki: https://opencaselist.com/hspf24 . Disclosure allows for better debates and better researched evidence that holds debaters to a higher evidence standard. I am not sympathetic to the argument that disclosure creates an unfair advantage for your opponents, because good debaters can defend their evidence even if your opponents can prep you out. If you need help or have questions on how to do so, please feel free to reach out to me or any other southwest coach. (this does not mean I will always vote for disclosure theory - see my info on theory in PF for more info).

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

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 impact your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am okay with you spreading or going fast in the round, just be conscientious of your opponents and if they're okay with speed. I will not usually call speed - so long as I have a speech doc to check, but may call clear if you're just mumbling. Bottom line, be a good person and be respectful to your opponents.

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

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

Public Forum:

**Theory (ex. disclosure/paraphrasing) is okay in PF. Run it as you will. I personally believe disclosure is good, but you also have to prove that to me in round. There are many ways to beat these types of arguments, just make sure you have a competitive counter-interp, reasons to prefer, and voters.

**K's generally don't go well in PF, 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.

*Impacts: I will vote for anything, so long as it is weighed and brought through each speech.

Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision. Please be kind and respectful during cross, there is a distinction between being assertive and aggressive. Lastly, if something important happened, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.

Rebuttal: Frontlining in second rebuttal is a MUST! 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 as I was a PF debater, but I have transitioned into NFA LD at the college level, so I can understand policy style arguments. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms as well. I would prefer rounds that focus more on policy (case, disads, counterplans, and T) since I'm not as familiar with Ks. But I will also try to adapt to your style and arguments if you so choose to run a K.

General:

--I think sending a doc before each speech with cut cards (analytics not needed) is a MUST for debaters.

--A lot of times this event tends to be heavy on reading off the doc and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions that happen on the flow. 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, but I will vote on most anything if you debate it well enough.

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 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. I will vote on theories like PICs bad, QPQ bad, etc. - but not frivolous theory.

--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). But I will vote for T so long as you're extending the interp, standards, and voters.

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

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.

--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.

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

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! Ultimately, if there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical.

*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)

Background: Debated policy for three years in high school (Millard West 2010-2013), and have judged on and off since then.

To answer a few questions you may have:

-I'm fine with speed reading.

-I don't take prep time for flashing cards (don't prep when someone is flashing!).

Overall, I'm open to voting on just about any argument as long as you articulate it well, have good cards/evidence, and pull it through the round. The only exception to this is that I would prefer to see in round abuse before voting for a T argument. If there is no abuse, I might still vote for the argument, but you can't just extend your T shell and expect to win.