Hancock,+Lindsey

Hancock, Lindsey

__Background:__ I participated in IEs, Public Forum debate, and Student Congress for four years (2007-2011) at Independence High School in Thompson's Station, TN and captained that team from 2009-2011. I was a state runner-up for nationals in both Public Forum and Student Congress in 2011. I am now a senior at Mercer University, where I compete in NPDA-style parliamentary debate on. My partner and I are consistently ranked in the top 50 parli teams in the nation, and recently qualified for this year's National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence. We are an experienced critical team, and are also doing some project/performative debating this semester, which I have found incredibly important and worthwhile. I was the director of the Public Forum division at Samford Debate Institute last summer, and will be directing there again this summer. I have also coached public forum debate, student congress, and individual events at Tiftarea Academy in Tifton, Georgia since October 2013.

__Overview:__ I firmly believe that the debate space is for the debaters. You are welcome to read my paradigm and my preferences, but ultimately you must do and say what you feel empowered by. Debate, to me, is not a game of winners and losers, but a powerful platform to discuss ideas and experiences, and a method of persuading people's minds and changing their hearts. Therefore, I am open to most anything and I love to see public forum debaters trying new strategies and being creative with their cases and performance (because all debate is a performance).

**PF Judging Paradigm**
__Plans/Counterplans:__ It's the one thing that's against the rules, so if you have a specific advocacy, actor, or anything outside the scope of the resolution, the only way to pick up my ballot on this is to explain why breaking the rules is good. I feel like this is being used as a strategy that causes ground loss for teams who are totally unprepared to debate whatever thing you pulled out of your rear and made up for this month. I think it's pretty abusive, and while I stand by telling you to run whatever you want and that I will vote on whatever you give me, this is going to be my highest threshold to win of anything else. Proceed with caution.

__Speed/Spreading:__ Fine, but it bothers me if you speed through your speech and sit down with two minutes left on the clock. You should only speed if you have to. Clarity is important. There's no speed at which I can't understand you, but you could definitely be mumbling or jumbling your words so much that I can't understand you. Be careful about this. I would also rather hear three great contentions than seven crappy ones.

__Jargon:__ The use of jargon from other forms of debate such as LD or Policy is unacceptable. If you want to run a T- or a K- in PF, feel free but do not use jargon to describe what you're doing. You need to frame these arguments in a way that is accessible to everyone in the room, even if they don't have a policy background.

__Style:__ I'm a fan of style in PF rounds. I enjoy eloquent speeches and I enjoy judging talented speakers. That said, I will NOT vote based on how good of a speaker you are. However, you will definitely win brownie points and higher speaks if you present confident, clear, and well-paced speeches. I love creativity. Low-point wins are not rare at all for me. I only give below a 23 for gross offensiveness in the round.

__Arguments:__ I'm open to any arguments you want to make.

Essentially, every round is unique and I am not going to vote on the same parameters for every, single round. I will take what you give me to work with and make a fair decision. If you have any questions specific to what you're running, you should not be afraid to ask me before the round starts, but that said, I do not think you need to censor yourself or change your advocacies based on what I like to see, hear, or judge. I know winning my ballot seems important, but it's really not. Do what inspires you, say what you believe.

__Framework/Criterion:__ I was never a fan of giving judges criterion or "framework" in high school, but as an NPDA debater and coach, I'm sold on it now. I vote on this pretty often and I don't think it's something that should be missing in your case. Some PFers are struggling with framework debate, but I think it's a valuable debate to have.

__Definitions:__ I will take note of the definitions you offer in your first constructives, but try not to bicker over definitions the entire time. Even though they might be important, that's a boring debate, and I don't want to be bored.

__Flex-Cases and__ __Addressing the First Affirmative Speech in the First Negative Speech:__ Why are so many judges against this? I don't know either. Everyone should be doing this. Second team, feel free to address the first team's arguments in your first constructive if you have time. I think it's a smart move.

__Biases:__ I'm not going to lie to you and say I'm coming into the round tab ras. The number one thing that I hate is when students let words come out of their mouth without thinking about the implications of those words. For example, if you're saying that undocumented workers don't matter as much as "real" Americans, your words could be hurtful to the people that you're marginalizing. If you're saying that we shouldn't give other countries aid because they're untrustworthy due to their primary religion, that offends me even though I probably don't share their religion. Saying stuff like this is the best way to get a nasty ballot from me. I'm a liberal, feminist, vegetarian, and you should probably keep those things in mind when you have me in the back of the room. I will never vote for a team based on my political leanings, but if a team on either side of the spectrum becomes offensive and lets things that are downright evil come out of their mouths, I am definitely docking speaks, and if your opponents are good enough to pick up on it and make it a voting issue, I'm voting on it. I think that at that point, the most educational thing I can do is drop you so that you learn not to use that kind of rhetoric in the long run.

__Behavior:__ I will not accept rudeness before, during, or after the round. Sarcasm is fine to an extent, but I will not accept it in an excess. Outright rudeness will most certainly result in speaks being docked and possibly a loss for the team. If I hear you talking outside the room about your opponents for the round or ANY of your opponents from the day, I will dock speaks. If I hear you talking after the round about any opponents, I will dock speaks as long as I have not turned in your ballot yet. Seriously. Keep it classy please.

Sexist attitude/behavior is not ok. I will call it out every time I see it, and I will stop the round if it becomes abusive. You will not act condescending toward a debater of either sex. You will not refer to a debater of either sex in a negative way. You will not be rude to any debater because of his or her sex before, during, or after a round.

__Attitude:__ I am happy to talk with you about my decision and explain to you how I reached my decision. That being said, the fastest way to get on my bad list is to catch an attitude with me after a round. I've been doing this for eight years, I actually do know more than you, so you're welcome to ask questions but arguing with me is not going to get you anywhere. At that point, we will probably have a conversation about why my ballot is lifechanging for you- debate is much more than my ballot, your win-loss record, and yes, even breaking at the Barkley Forum.

__Personal Preferences:__ For the love of God, time yourselves. And keep your own prep time. I don't do math. And don't be super formal and weird with me, I'm literally, at most, nine years older than you. A "thank you" will suffice, I don't need to shake forty-five hands every tournament. Maybe I am just unfriendly, but there it is.

NPDA Judging Paradigm:
__Speed/Spreading:__ Fine, but open to spreading kritiks. If I am judging you in Georgia though, or anywhere in the South for that matter, what you think is fast and what I think is fast are probably two very, very different things.

__Jargon:__ No problem, just please make sure you explain what you mean if your opponents stand up and ask. Please be sympathetic instead of condescending to novice debaters, we all have to start somewhere.

__Topicality:__ I am open to topicality, but I think it gets overused a lot. I'm not going to buy it if they are clearly not being abusive in their definitions. However, I will ABSOLUTELY buy it if you can clearly explain to me why they are obviously being abusive. I guess that with me, you should run topicality very carefully. I will buy it if it's good and drop it if it's crappily executed.

__Trichotomy:__ I don't think this matters.

__Kritik:__ Mercer is a critical team, and I like well-executed kritiks. Just make sure that it is structured correctly.

__Style:__ I don't want to see style sacrificed for strategy, so try to find a happy medium. I think parli should be a combination of technically correct argumentation and good speaking.

__Behavior:__ Don't say racist or sexist things. See "Biases" under the PF section.

__Performance/Projects:__ Yes, yes, and yes. Tell me what a ballot for you does, though.

__Counterplans:__ Meh. Boring.

__Theory:__ If you insist.

__Personal Preferences:__ Don't be annoying. Don't abuse Point of Order. Don't verbally interrupt your opponents with questions, wait to be called on. Don't say racist crap. Don't call animals hamburgers.

**IPDA Judging Paradigm:**
I guess just try to be funny and make me laugh, because you know I'm grumpy if someone has stuck me in the back of your IPDA round. I think this event is probably worthless. Your best bet is to treat it like an NPDA round.

**Policy Judging Paradigm:**
If you have me in the back of the room for policy and don't like my decision, please complain about to the tournament director and not to me, because I guarantee that the only reason you will ever see me in the back of your policy room is if the tournament director insisted on it. It's just not really my thing.

Most of my policy paradigm is going to reflect what I do at Mercer for NPDA debate. I'm sure that's not super helpful for you, but there it is.

__Speed/Spreading:__ I'm fine with speed for the most part, but I do not have any competitive background in policy and my ear isn't as finely tuned as a former policy debater's or policy coach. You should keep this in mind. That being said, I will be able to understand you better than a lay judge or new judge. I will say clear when things get too fast or too muddled, but do note that when I can no longer understand you, I will no longer write down what you're saying. It's your job to adapt to me, not the other way around.

__Personal Preferences:__

I don't want to time you or read your cards, so don't ask. Manage your own speech time and prep time. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it, but I basically trust you not to lie to me.

__ All the Other Stuff: __ See NPDA paradigm.

Any other questions, feel free to ask me. You can always shoot me a line at lindsey.a.hancock@live.mercer.edu if you're still confused about a decision after reading my ballot.