Cramer,+Kristie

Kristie Cramer Affiliation = George Mason University I debated in high school for Canton Central Catholic and began coaching at Canton Central Catholic (CCC) during college. I was the head coach at CCC for the last 13 years. I took over the policy program at Perry High School in 2005 until 2010. I also coached at the collegiate level, with Case Western Reserve for two years. Each summer I also work at the Dartmouth Debate Workshop & the Dartmouth Debate Institute. On top of that I lead a junior league each spring in the Canton/Massillon area in Ohio. Now I've moved to Virginia to take positions at GDS & GMU. Needless to say I've been around debate for a long time.

I consider myself to hold to the tabula rasa judge paradigm. As much as mentally possible I can enter the round a blank slate, without any argument prefences or argument biases. I believe in judging the round strictly off the flow and absolutely HATE judge intervention. That means even if certain arguments are true if you don't say that on the flow I won't let that enter my decision...I am a strict off the flow judge. If the debaters do their job, they tell me how to think and evaluate the round it means I don't need to do a bunch of work to determine a winner or call upon my own debate knowledge and intervene to find a winner. Remember looking at a round through that lenses means debaters have a lot of work to do. They must cover each argument, weigh the round, tell me the voters in the round, and impact those voters. When I say impact the voters, that doesn't mean one line blips persuade me but well developed arguments do! It also means the arguments have to be on the flow in the appropriate places. Please try to stay consistent in your speeches so I can keep arguments next to each other on the flow.

While I am a flow heavy judge I should say that I've also evaluated many performance debates. I have voted for these sorts of arguments as well as dropped these sorts of arguments; I don't have any bias one way or the other. I do feel that the performance should have something to do with the topic, have an impact, and should still discuss all of an opponents arguments in some fashion. I do see some of the flaws in debate & understand why performance arguments have come about & I enjoy these debates as much as a "traditional policy round" if they are done well. I can handle traditional & non-traditional debate rounds equally as well. Next, I try to protect the last two speakers, don't try arguments in the 2AR if the basis of the argument wasn't in the 2AC or 1AR. I realize any good 2AR builds more on the 1AR but some of the analysis has to be there previously. The same holds for the 2NR, if it wasn't somewhere in the block it shouldn't be there in the 2NR. In terms of specific arguments...any argument is fine with me. I will and have voted on just about any argument out there. I believe I can handle just about any argument. Topicality, counterplans, critiques, conditionality, dispositionality, fiat arguments, topicality permutations, counter critiques, the whole list of theory arguments are all fine with me and I could be typing all day to list them all so suffice it to say run anything because I will evaluate anything you tell me to. I firmly believe the debate belongs to the debaters so run the arguments you want, just make sure your strategy makes sense and that you can support it. Run what you want. Disclaimer: that doesn't mean I want to hear offensive strategies or words. Also beware I am very sensitive to gendered language. When it comes to voting on theory arguments (including T or Aspec, etc...), you will have an easier time getting my ballot if you can demonstrate in round abuse or prove why voting on your particular argument will make for a better debate. On T in particular I like hearing a topical case list and topical version of the Aff for fair limits. Framework arguments - I don't really buy critiques don't have a place in debate, there are plenty of reasons they do. I think alot of framework arguments end in the same conclusion: let the Aff weigh their case, as such recognize if that's true with that round's particular criticism and don't sit on fw on the flow too long if you don't have to. There are other criticisms where the framework debate is much more important, ie Security/Threat Con debates, ethics questions, language critiques, reality critiques I'm impressed by debaters who realize the very specific role framework can take & the generic role framework can take. I"ve heard lots of critiques, read lots of critiques, coached many critiques - that said I don't claim to know about every critique personally. You can run any criticism you'd like just make sure if it's something new or deeply developed you spend sometime simplifying it so that I'm on the same page as you. Alternatives can be great & useful to have, but plenty of teams have won in front of me without winning the Alt, critiques can still function & win just as case turns or offense against the case. There are 2 other important facts to tell you about my judging. One, don't clip cards! I can handle a quick round, but a quick round DOES NOT mean a debater should card clip, cross-read, etc... I listen to evidence & often flow texts of cards - if a card doesn't make sense I'll know it & if you get through a ton of cards sooner than is reasonable I'll pay attention & make sure you are reading the evidence properly. If you do card clip, I'll drop your speaker points & most likely ignore large parts of your evidence because it was read improperly which will probably mean you'll lose the round. DO NOT DO IT.

Second, I dislike prep stealing. If you are up, the be up & ready to go not talking to your partner or organizing your flows. When you stop prep it should mean you are standing there ready to give your order. I don't give free time to anyone in a debate round, everyone's time is valuable. This move to paperless, while good, is taking a lot of extra time in round. When you are up for your speech you should have your speech on a jump drive, ready to go, and handing it to the other team or on a viewing laptop ready to read...not still copying & pasting cards. If I see teams dragging out the debate by transferring speeches, I'll lose my patience & start keeping a running clock. Do transfer drills if your going paperless so that you can are fast at getting your speeches to the other team. That's said don't jump ahead when you're reading another team's evidence, you don't get paper early so if another team is paperless you should treat that the same & only read the evidence they've already read aloud, that seems fair. As I said I'm a flow heavy judge, that said, make sure I can flow you...be clear, speak up, and always slow down on analytics. I'm a decently fast flower but there are plenty of faster flowers out there than me. I value signposting, smooth transitions from one page to another, and slight pauses from one argument or piece of evidence to another. Flowing is an art dependent, in part, upon a well delivered speech.