Nubel,+Megan

West Des Moines Valley High School: 2009-2013, Loyola University of Chicago 2013-2018 __ School Affiliation (2015-2016) __ : New Trier Township High School I'm currently a special education teacher in Chicago Public Schools. __Judging Experience:__ I judge a few national circuit LD tournaments each year in addition to local tournaments.

PLEASE NOTE: I have tinnitus. You do not need to yell but please keep in mind volume, especially if you have a tendency to read quickly and softly. If there are no pauses/inflection in your speaking, it will be much harder for me to follow.

__**Flowing/Spreading**__ -Speed is fine but certainly not a requirement -I will not hesitate to say slow/clear multiple times; however, I will not dock speaker points unless I feel that you are making no effort to adjust or your speed had a significant adverse impact on my understanding of your arguments -Please try your best to make the round accessible to your opponent -SLOW DOWN AND PAUSE FOR: Card names, analytical arguments/transitioning to the next analytical argument, spikes, texts (plan/CP/alt, interpretations on theory, role of the ballot). I will say "repeat" if I do not catch interpretations or texts (yes, even in the 1ar), so please read it slowly the first time. I flow on paper and I'm not about to vote on an argument I don't hear the first time.

**__Generic:__** -Some arguments are (arguably) sketchy but also interesting, but if your case is more than half underdeveloped spikes, skep triggers, and theory preempts it's probably not the right case to run in front of me because it is usually impossible for me to flow. If your case is largely spikes, you definitely need to go __significantly__ slower when you switch between arguments. I won't back flow from a speech document. -Please give an honest effort to understand and accurately answer CX questions. -Please emphasize what you think is important, and its relationship to other elements in the round. Sometimes in rounds I feel like I hear words, I comprehend them, and I know what they mean, but when they are all strung together they aren't meaningful to me and I can't quite figure out where to place them in the round.

__**"Policy-Style" Arguments**__ -I am very impressed by scenarios with logical (and maybe even plausible) link chains, as well as debaters who use their uniqueness well in the 1ar, 2ar. Speaks will be awarded accordingly. -I default perms as tests of competitions. If you don't explicitly advocate your perm in the 1ar, I won't vote on a perm articulated as an advocacy in the 2ar. -I tend to think that plans are educational/fair (that is not to say you don't have to answer plans bad theory) but I agree that you should disclose your plan text at the very minimum if it has been broken. -Please have an actual internal link for your politics DA **__Theory:__** -You need to go slower on theory/theory spikes than on other layers of the debate. This includes theory spike underviews. -The last thing I want to hear during a theory debate is a laundry list of generic weighing arguments between standards or 10 blips why RVIs are/aren't voters (these are also really hard to flow, so please slow down significantly). Please try your best to be interactive and directly responsive in theory debates. DO NOT TURN A THEORY DEBATE INTO A TAGLINE DEBATE. Very hard for me to flow theory debates so only collapse to theory if you know you will be doing good argument explanation and comparison. -I find offensive counter interps to be pretty persuasive. I think that any interpretation that contains a violation is offensive. -If your "I meet" arguments are only sketchy/rely on wordplay, I will treat them as only defense on the theory debate. For example, if you are responding to an interpretation that says "All burdens must be necessary and sufficient" and your response is "I meet- It's necessary for him and sufficient for me," I will default to evaluating that as mitigatory defense but not terminal defense unless you have a really good reason why I should do so. Even under competing interpretations, I am very sympathetic to responses to sketchy I-meets. -I will not vote on 2ar RVIs or new theory in the 2ar and generally think that 2N theory should be drop the argument. **__Critical Arguments:__** -I think a lot of critical arguments are cool but I'm not too familiar with many of the philosophers. The explanation and ballot story will have to be clear; do not rely on terminology specific to your author because more often than not I am not familiar with them. -I think links of omission are fine if your criticism is of something very prevalent in a subset of topic literature. If your opponent links to your criticism because of an omission, explain why they should have been expected to account for that issue in their position. -I have no problem voting on micro-political positions if the ballot story is clear and won. I think debate is a space where you should feel comfortable talking about or getting angry about issues that you find important and I am open to reasons why this should come before a discussion of the particular topic. I don't default to assuming you must be topical, but I do find it interesting when they are tied in some way to an idea in the topic. **__Speaker Points:__** I do not disclose speaks. If I do not voluntarily tell you my speaker points during my RFD then please do not ask me to do so. If you tried your hardest, chose a good strategy, and were generally polite, then you don't have to worry too much about your speaks. I don't usually go below 27.5. **__Other:__** -Please **do not use derogatory or exclusionary language,** it will make me uncomfortable and I will significantly lower your speaker points. I will also be partial toward arguments that say you should be dropped because of this (they must still have warrants that are won, unless you've REALLY crossed a line and then I will contact someone from your school.) -If you are reading your case from your computer, you need to either have a flash drive or a paper copy of your case. Don't take a ton of time to flash cases. I'm not going to call you out if you take a long time to flash your case or whatnot, but it can be really annoying and might impact your speaker points if an excessive amount of time is taken. -I do not want you to flash me your case or include me on an email chain because I want to be able to understand your arguments when they are originally presented. -Fine with disclosure theory. Other arguments about out-of-round conduct can be tricky because of verification issues but if you feel that it's important to bring up in round I will certainly listen.

If you want to ask me questions about my decision, go for it. I would love to talk with you about arguments or strategy if you are genuinely curious or interested in learning/improving. I understand that you can get angry about a decision and that's your right, but remember I am only human and I cannot read your brain I can only listen to your arguments.