Lavelle,+Katherine

Hired Judge – Assistant Professor of Communication Studies - Advocacy & Communication Criticism at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

21 years of policy debate experience [NFL Ohio in high school, NDT/CEDA/ADA as a college competitor (John Carroll University) and coach/DOF (Miami University, Wayne State, Augustana, Northern Iowa] Judging High School Policy Debate in Iowa since 2006


 * Debate in general** – This is my first year unaffiliated with a program, so I’m not up on the topic literature/chats. I encourage topic specific arguments, but make sure that some of the jargon of the topic is discussed in the round. All major arguments in the round must have significance within the context of the round and other major arguments. While I will read some cards for clarification after the round, I don’t reconstruct the debate based on the cards – you all need to make the arguments in the debate.

In terms of behavior, here’s the deal: if someone makes an inappropriate statement (or acts inappropriately) in the round, I’m going to say something when it happens. I love debate, and I’m happy to judge. But don’t be a jerk. You can be an effective debater by being assertive and respectful.

Watch my non-verbals during the round. If something is unclear or doesn’t make sense to me, you can usually tell by watching me.

The **2NR** should – choose 1 (if going for T or K) to 2-3 (DA, CP, case) arguments and explain why this wins you the round in spite of aff arguments. Close the door on potential aff winners (hidden theory, turn story) The **2AR** should-Provide a clear story for why your advocacy is superior. This could be your case, a turn story you have developed, etc. It is wise to have as much connection between the 1AR/2AR as possible, a brand new 2AR will not beat a good 2NR.
 * Decision Calculus** – fewer arguments is better for me. A good 2NR doesn’t go for everything – and you should have enough development in the block to spend the right amount of time on your round winners.


 * Timing/Jumping** – Prep time stops when you pull your flash drive out of the computer. I flow on paper and I flow better if I have no other distractions. You are free to keep time, but as the judge, I will keep the official time for CX, etc.


 * Case Specific Arguments –** I follow the news, but I’m not cutting cards. I like case debates; a good case debate is developed with specific, recent evidence. As long as you explain the nuances of your case specific arguments, I appreciate these types of arguments. You are better off spending time on developed arguments than having a ton of “arguments” that aren’t developed.


 * Topicality** – I like a good T debate. Have a copy of the resolution for me. Both teams – be specific, explain what is/not topical under the different T interpretations. I don’t have strong opinions on what is the “best” standard to evaluate T. //Aff –// have a good counter interpretation/definition, provide enough doubt about the negative interpretation, provide good counterstandards. Don’t waste time with T is a reverse voting issue. T is a procedural issue, not a turn argument. Pre round, write a good plan text to avoid T arguments. //Neg –// have a good, contextual definition, provide specific ways that aff is potentially/actually not topical (cases, ways they explode the topic). Provide good reasons for me to vote on T. Spend time on it if you are going to go for it. Show how the plan text is not topical.


 * Kritiks** –My academic research is rhetoric of sports. I have done some work with Orientalism, Spivak, Foucault, whiteness, masculinity, blackness, critical discourse analysis, and feminism in sports. I am not a K hack, but not a K hater. For me, a good kritik debate is thoughtful. How does the kritik operate in the round? How does the offending team violate the kritik? (Framing of arguments, languages, solution-oriented world)? Especially in the block, go a bit slower on the K. I prefer more development of arguments in the round, as opposed to an artificial discussion of a theory. Include a brief overview and explain how the argument functions in the round.

I am open to a wide variety of critical arguments, but I have problems sorting them out in rounds when they are discussed as an abstract concept, not as a functioning argument in the round. For instance, my favorite type of kritik debate is one that operates as a solvency take out or turn. Alternative debates can be a bit hard to defend in the last speech; I think you should run them, make good arguments to why the affirmative links to the kritik, even in a world where they “solve.” If you are affirmative, make no link arguments and permutation arguments. I think that there are good arguments about why plan action and rethinking can work together. I don’t that the affirmative loses advocacy just because a kritik is run. Instead, make arguments about why you provide a more specific avenue to address the problems in the affirmative plan. As for framework debates, I think that they aren’t necessary (such as presenting them in the 1AC), but I think the affirmative has the right to defend that fiat is good. I am more interested in the substantive debate than the framework debate.


 * Disads –** Disads are good. I like disads. Make sure that you develop impact calculus in the last two speeches. I also think that more specific arguments on DAs trump lots of blippy theory arguments.


 * Theory -** I am kind of “eh” on theory. If you are going to win theory, I think that you need to be answering all of your opponents’ arguments, as well as making good reasons why your theory argument is better. Spend some time on theory if you want me to vote on this issue.


 * Counterplans -** I think that you should to discuss solvency deficits between the counterplan and case. It can be frustrating as a judge if debaters don’t explain how a CP works or what the net benefits are. A short overview in the block can be a good place to provide this explanation. Again, DOF, not in the war room for these things, so if you are running a super case specific counterplan, spend some time on it.


 * Performance** – Here’s the deal – I think that performance arguments/advocacies operate like any other argument in the round, you have to defend some advocacy and explain how it functions with the opposing arguments. I know that the structure of many performance arguments can make this difficult, but I think that some attempt needs to happen (it may not happen until the end of the debate). As a judge, it’s hard to understand all of the intricacies of a performance argument when it functions in isolation to other arguments in the round.


 * Flowing** - I flow on paper. Since I’m coaching retired, it’s unlikely that will change. Keep this in mind if you have very long overviews on positions.