Skinner,+Ashley

About me: I am now in my final year of college at Western Washington University and I am studying Political Science. I debated LD in high school for 2 years and I have been coaching LD for Tahoma High School for four years. I was a college parli debater for PLU for two years. I've been judging consistently on the Washington debate circuit for four years and intermittently on the national circuit for four years.

Overview: This should give you general information on how I vote and view the round, and a more in depth explanation of my views on specific issues is below.
 * I will generally look to some sort of framework by which to evaluate the arguments in the round. Without an evaluative mechanism by which to weigh the arguments in the round, I will be at a loss. I evaluation pre-framework, theoretical arguments as a-priori if you give me a reason as to why that is the case. Explain to me why I ought to vote for you and why you deserve the ballot through coverage of the impacts and implications of the arguments in the round. Make clear extensions of the warrant and impact; this is very important to me. I do not feel comfortable voting for extensions of author names or solely claims, as well as unwarranted impacts, though I am understanding of a time-crunched aff and do offer a bit of leeway for extensions or arguments that are uncontested or dropped. Engage in argument and evidence comparison and I will likely be pleased. I think you will find that I am a pretty open judge, so just do what you are comfortable with.**

Here are some of my more in depth views and opinions, in the hope that you will be able to understand some of my particular likes, qualms and dispositions.

Please, please understand: running theory on a completely predictable, stock argument that attempts to bind the debater into some form of debate that they are not comfortable debating is stupid and incredibly frustrating to me! (Example: Aff runs a completely stock case and neg runs "Aff must run a plan." Seriously, why?) Caveat: Unless you are doing a really good job weighing standards and extending the necessary elements of the shell clearly, I generally find the theory debate difficult to weigh. Do not dump on theory, be clear and comparative, engaging in the arguments within the shell. Conversely, if you are making extensions, respond to any counter standards or arguments against the standards as well. Again, please extend the entirety of the shell.
 * 1. Theory: ** I recognize the value and importance of theory arguments. These types of arguments are sometimes necessary for debate in my mind. That being said, let’s talk about when I will be okay with you running theory. Running theory as a strategy to outsmart or screw over a less technically proficient debater (or a debater who does not understand theory) is never a good strategy in front of me. I will be very frustrated and you will likely receive incredibly low speaker points. That being said, when there is in-round abuse or high levels of potential abuse, run theory. Chances are your opponent knows it’s coming. Run theory correctly: interp, violation, standards and voting issues. Organize the argument well, just like you would any other position. Tell me why I am voting for it. I default to competing interpretations when evaluating these positions, but I am completely fine with reasonability as well. You tell me. I tend to favor fairness over education on theory arguments, but I am fine voting on an education voting issue if the warrant is present. Either way, warrant your voting issue and don’t cross-apply voting issues on multiple theory shells, this is particularly annoying to me. I will evaluate an RVI like any other argument in the round, so if you are going to make one, put some time there.

Caveat: Slow down a bit, please. You are reading what I would generally read twice through to fully comprehend at the speed of light. Also, I've recently found myself skeptical of the pre-fiat arguments about myself as the judge changing somehow- if you're not doing a good job explaining this to me, I will be hesitant to vote there.
 * 2. Kritiks ** : I'm okay with the K debate, but if you're going to do this strong links and explanation of function are vital. That being said, if you are running crazy stuff, explain it so that I understand it. I don't like voting for things I don't understand. I like to hear new positions and I enjoy interesting debates, not the same old stock debate. Sure, maybe you know how to win the stock argument, but that gets old (for both you and me). That said; don't run these types of arguments just to make me happy or just because, only run it if it is good, logical, and your opponent's advocacy actually links. Your alt needs solvency or I feel uncomfortable voting for it.


 * 3. ** Run whatever you like- but please let it make sense. LD debate is a lot different than other styles of debate. The neg doesn't always represent the SQ which means some of these positions get super confusing so just be smart about the way you set up the argument. I'm fine evaluating a CP, so long as it is competitive and mutually-exclusive, which can sometimes be a challenge for the neg. But other than that, debate the way you want to. I like debate rounds to make sense and not be unnecessarily illogical or scattered.


 * 4. ** For **framework**, you will save time and make me much happier if you talk about frameworks comparatively instead of just addressing them as you go down the flow. If the framework is dense, you need to continue to explain it throughout the round and not just assumer “I get it.”


 * STYLISTIC PREFERENCES/VIEWS **


 * 1. ** **Speaking Style:** Speed is fine. That being said, unclarity is unacceptable especially if you are deciding to speak at a rapid pace. I will call clear twice for a debater. By that time in the round you should know if I can understand you or not. This will hurt your speaks significantly. Slow down for tags/author names and pause when you are switching positions.


 * 2. C-X ** You may use flex-prep. Please still use 3 minutes of CX. You may continue asking questions during prep but taking 7 minutes of prep is never okay. CX is binding, but you must bring up the things that are discussed in CX during a speech for me to evaluate them in round. Engage and avoid, at all cost, being evasive during CX or I will be rather irritated.


 * 3. ** Don't be a jerk. If I think you are being unbearably rude, I will probably say something- it is incredibly uncomfortable for me as the judge. That being said, it takes a lot for me to actually think you are being mean/rude enough to constitute me saying something. My debating style was always rather aggressive; I just think you need to stay within a reasonable realm of courtesy. DO NOT make ad hominem attacks on the person you are debating.


 * 4. ** You may sit when you speak, this does not bother me. You may wear whatever you like, so long as you are clothed. These are things that do not affect my judging, unless it somehow effects your debating in the round.


 * SPEAKER POINTS: ** My speaker points are not necessarily based of speaking style, but instead they are based off things such as: strategy, round vision, impact weighing, collapsing, and maybe even being a little tricky. If I think you are clever or creative, you have a better chance of getting higher speaks. Basically, my speaks are off strategy and all the things that come with it. Although, I will dock you for unclarity, especially if you don't adapt after I call out 'clear'. I think that debate isn't just a game but also about education, and thus the ability to balance the two is strategic. I would say generally my speaks start at about a 27 and move up and/or down from there depending on all of the afore mentioned things. I'll disclose speaks if you ask. This means I am willing to explain my reasons for your speaks.

Look, I know everyone worries about 'judge adaptation.' I am a very wide open judge and I try not to let things cloud my view of the round. I have tried to reveal my biases and views of debate throughout my paradigm, but just do what you are good at. You have a better chance of winning my ballot if you are doing what you are good at well and not trying to do something that you aren't good at and failing horribly. Don't lie. Have fun, debate is a time-consuming activity that takes up our weekends and free time so I don't come to tournaments to be bored and I think you shouldn't either. Make the round entertaining, interesting and fun and we'll be golden.


 * Questions? PLEASE, Ask me. I do not have time to write every preference I have on here but I do have time to answer your questions prior to the round. Enjoy debating. **