Savage,+Jennie

Jennie Savage
//Background:// I debated policy at the Montgomery Academy (AL,) was an assistant LD coach and am now the Director of Forensics at Palo Alto High School in California. Between those two debate-related bookends, I gained 20+ years of real-world experience working in the political and communications arenas that informs my decisions. Please note that I have update my paradigm from time to time as my judging philosophy is evolving. //To give you some insight into how I generally evaluate rounds, I’ll answer the most common questions debaters have://

I’m able to flow fast LD debate (though not some varsity CX rounds.) If you’ve got 10 minutes of brilliant and compelling argumentation and need to speak fast to cram it into 7 minutes, I’m fine with your using a rapid rate of delivery. Your best bet is a moderately fast rate or a very clear fast rate.
 * __How fast can I go?__**

In short, yes. I will and have voted on theory argumentation, and I think that theory has an important pedagogical place in debate - -to check clear in-round abuse. In order for me to vote on theory, there must be a clear and egregious violation occurring in the round (for example the tautology ground-grab many affs attempted on the corporations topic,) and the theory voter must be out-weighed against other substantive arguments presented in round. I prefer to vote on substance so unless the theory voter is a compelling one, your best bet is not to put all your eggs in the theory basket as the sole voter unless you know I'm going to pull the trigger there. Given proven in-round abuse, I am willing to vote on an RVI if it's attached to an education voter.
 * __Can I run theory in front of her?__**

Solely on speaking clarity and style. My win/loss decision is based on who demonstrates and clear and compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution through argumentation regardless of fluency and beauty of speech, so I do award low-point wins from time to time. My average is a 28 but the range is 26-30.
 * __How does she award speaker points?__**

Just about anything, though I prefer topical substantive debate over "a priori" wars and purely technical moves. I find debate dealing with marginalized populations both relevant and fascinating. Because I view debate as primarily an educational activity that paves the way to explore culturally sensitive or taboo subjects in a safe environment, I appreciate when debaters use the opportunity to be daring and evocative by questioning our normative beliefs and actions. (I’ve picked up debaters running K’s and "performative" cases.)
 * __What can I run in front of her?__**

__**What does she hate to see?**__
 * Debaters relying on "a priori" arguments, (particularly multiple ones), to cover up weak debate skills.
 * Rudeness of any kind to anyone: opponents, teams, coaches, judges, populations referenced in arguments.
 * Rounds that have no clear impacted arguments or weighing mechanism for those arguments in them.
 * Debaters who choose to sit during argumentation. I will drop a speaker point if you choose to do this.

Most rounds involve far more subjective interpretation by judges than debaters wish they did. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have the need for paradigms, so this is my attempt for you to understand the ways in which I’m subjective.
 * __How interventionist is she?__**
 * I will not yell "clear" if your speech is garbled (that crosses the interventionist line.)
 * I will disregard blippy, unwarranted, or unimpacted arguments even if it’s not pointed out in the round.
 * I will not vote for arguments demanding that I negate or affirm "on face" because of the way the resolution is worded.
 * I will not vote on a particular argument because you tell me I "have to." I will vote on what you make matter to me.
 * I do believe that the negative must negate the resolution and not just negate the affirmative’s case.

As all judges do, I prefer to vote on arguments that are topical, clear, impacted to a standard, and weighed against other offense in the round. When rounds are muddled and arguments are not weighed (ie when I’m forced to do work or intervene) I vote for whose world I’d rather live in at the end of the day given the harms/benefits fleshed out in the round.
 * __How does she default?__**