Conklin,+Elyse

see my edit history or tabroom philosophy for my actual judge philosophy ;)

Background: Debated for 3 years at Greenhill, then 1 year at West Des Moines Valley, then finished up my career at Glenbrook South for 4 years (although I returned to Greenhill briefly after my junior year, where I discovered I was no longer welcome). My college debate career was illustrious. I won the NDT three times as a freshman with MSU, then an additional two times at West Georgia. I also won CEDA and received top speaker while attending West Nevada Community College of Virginia.

Note: I have just graduated on parole from the Illinois Institute of Penal Confinement. I majored in Criminal Studies. I am therefore somewhat removed from the activity of debate. I have fundamentally lost the will to live.


 * Short version ** : I am basically open to anything. Do whatever you want within the confines of this philosophy.


 * Long version: **

Just to sum up some categories…

*Space Topic Update*: The ozone layer is NOT A THING. It has been disproven by real science. If I hear this obviously leftist-overrun disad, I will be VERY persuaded by a quick 2ac that points out that truth is on their side. I am not sure where I stand on the moon landing – I will try to keep this wiki updated with my present stance so you know if the spending disad is compelling or not. *Michigan 2011* - Real *Blake 2011* - Fake *MBA 2012* - Fake *Emory 2012* - Real *TOC 2012* - Real, but Neil Armstrong was not involved. There is an excellent documentary I saw on this that has me fully convinced.
 * Disads ** : Probably a waste of time in front of me. I have seen very few intrinsic “disads” in my time – as a rational policymaker, I can usually vote to do the plan and not spend money or invoke the “wrath” of Russia. Try to avoid impact comparison – it detracts from “objectively” determining the validity of disadvantages, which I prefer to do by comparing the EVIDENCE, not the blatant ignorance of a bunch of high schoolers. Frankly, rebuttals tend to be a waste of time. I rarely flow them because most arguments are just rehashes of the constructives.


 * Counterplans ** : I’m surprised how few people point out obviously topical counterplans. I find that theory argument convincing because the affirmative is entitled to the resolution. I don’t want to say “hypo-testing” (apparently that word is taboo) but I generally think such counterplans don’t disprove the resolution. Also, negative fiat is a tough sell, but I’ve voted on it before. If counterplans are not competitive, I will vote on the perm.

*Blake 2010 update*: I am on my fifth divorce, so I am kind of unstable right now.
 * Kritiques ** : I am familiar with the more mainstream arguments like Bataille and Baudrillard. If you plan on getting crazy and reading Marx or Foucault, make sure it is well explained. I have a VERY high threshold on the vague alts debate – I think it’s true that an alternative should have an agent and well-described course of action. Otherwise, it is hard to “read” disadvantages to the alternative – it always bothered me when I couldn’t read the Bush Good DA against alternatives because the negative would spike out of them. It is fairly easy to persuade me, however, that there is no objective reality outside of that situated within our discourse.


 * Topicality: ** Competing interpretations. I refuse to evaluate reasonability – I am uncomfortable intervening in debate. The affirmative must defend the resolution (UPDATE: I am NOT a hypo-tester – I just think the affirmative should AFFIRM the resolution.) “Substantially” checks the vast majority of arguments, but the aff very rarely wins because they usually cannot generate offensive reasons they can win if they’re topical (I am HUGELY committed to “offense-defense”). In this sense, I am morally conflicted. Evaluating T debates is rather hubristically existential to me, and you should treat my decision with respect.


 * Impacts: ** The impact “turn” is an underutilized strategy, especially when it comes to the more “out there” impacts like hegemony and patriarchy. Your speaker points will definitely be helped by a well-developed impact debate, although I often decide these before the first constructive has started. Here’s a little guide to where I lean on impacts (again, ALL OF THIS can be changed by what is said in the debate round, but only by extremely persuasive speeches):

Good: Hegemony, Economic Collapse, Biodiversity Loss, Neoliberalism, Patriarchy

Bad: Proliferation, Global Warming, Ice Age, Asteroids, Bees, Racism, Ontology

Undecided: Deforestation, China War, Education

*Omaha Westside 2006 update*: Please stop saying that genocide outweighs on probability – I think that the chances that I die in a genocide any time soon are very, VERY low. On a side note, my ethnic affiliations include Caucasian, European, Pacific Islander, and White, so I don’t find myself very sympathetic to most arguments about Natives. We had it very well for a long time. *Omaha Westside 2006 quarters update*: I was taught that “genocide” is both a verb and noun, so I won’t police you on that. However, the recent development of “genocide” as an adverb is disturbing. Please use “Holocaust” instead – it serves the same function and doesn’t sacrifice the English language.

Alternately, I can record the performance and send it to my good friend Val McIntosh, who shares my passion for theatre.
 * “Performance:” ** I do not recognize the utility of such arguments. However, the opposition frequently double-turns themselves by reading framework and a kritique, so I vote for these a lot more often than I’d like to. If you would like feedback on your theatrical skills, I would be happy to leverage my expertise from my Master’s in Theatre at Wayne State University (which I attained during a break from debate) and comment.
 * Projects: ** Most such projects are complicit in the system of capitalist domination, and therefore link to most disadvantages. I really enjoyed watching Como Park back when it was cool, but I haven’t seen anyone do it well since 2005-ish. Affirmatives should read a plan text, but negatives should not be so militant when they don’t. A well-developed impact turn is more valuable than the tired framework debate here.

*Wake Forest 2009 update*: Seeing the film // The Dark Knight // changed my outlook on fairness. I’ve decided that fairness is dangerous when it is considered the only impact (Harvey Dent is one scary dude. For a summary of the film, please go here). “Education” is similarly troubling because it just seems so arbitrary – I think a better standard is the gut check. I am very attuned to my gut, more than most judges, and pride myself on my ability to quickly determine my leanings on theory questions. *Dexter Delight Novice Tournament Update*: Here’s a “helpful” guide to my gut.
 * Theory: ** I think most theory debates suffer from a lack of link explanation. You cannot just assume that I “know” what “conditionality” or “international fiat” is. An explanation would make all this abstract discussion of “fairness” more compelling.

Good: International Fiat, Delay, Dispo, Veto Cheato, Floating PIKs

Bad: Conditionality, States, Process, PICS, Consult, Conditions.


 * Case: ** Saving the best for last. I determine whether to default to stock issues by a coin flip during 1ac “cross-examination.” I will not divulge the results of this toss until the decision, so you should plan accordingly. Otherwise, make sure you have defense. I am one of the rare judges who evaluates the case through a “defense-offense” lens. This means that a risk of defense means that overwhelming chance of offense is irrelevant. Do not read impact defense, however. It is a waste of time – most cards are poorly written and out of context.


 * Critical Affirmatives: ** These often do not solve their case. I believe that right-wing positions, however, are fundamentally flawed and should not be read in response (such as the Heg K or consequentialism). The best way to negate these is through a clever counterplan that has an impact-turned T violation as its net benefit – most affs are too trigger-happy here and will be too happy to provide a net benefit to your hopefully untopical counterplan (see above).

Author qualifications: They do not matter. America is a free country – you can say what you “want” and freedom of expression means you can write what you want and we have to respect it. If you say that evidence is “dumb” or “unqualified” I will not want to “vote” for you – you are striking at the heart of what makes my country great.
 * Other things: **

Speaker Points: I will use the 100-point scale, no matter what the tournament insists. Here is a conversion formula:

(Original value/(Original value + 1)) + 28

Here’s a rundown of what certain values mean. 0-2: You offended me in some way, or made the wrong 2nr decision (what could be easier? It infuriates me to see foolish high school kids prancing about as if they know things when they don’t deserve any of it.) 3-5: You seem to have a good understanding of the basics, but your speech needs a lot of development. 6-8: I felt bad for the other team and wanted to make them feel good about outspeaking you. 9-11: You spoke solidly. I may have voted for you, but am in a bad mood because of what the other team did. 12-14: Mediocre. 15-17: You speak too loud. 18-20: You speak too unclearly. 21-23: Your debating was fairly poor, but you reminded me of someone I like. 24-75: Needs work. 76-78: A good performance. You should expect to be in the top 53 speakers. 79-81: Top 44 speaker. 82-84: You should break and potentially receive a speaker award. 85-87: You have a strong reputation, so I did not flow the debate. 88-90: Decent – just needs a little more work. 91-93: Your performance was excellent but you did not do line-by-line. 94-96: You should be the top speaker at this tournament. I will give this number AT MOST four times per round. 97-99: Nearly flawless, perhaps you dropped a theory blip but should have won. Another possibility is that I am trying to make you opponents jealous. *Meadows 2010 Update*: Due to some complaints I have been receiving, I have been forced to alter my policy on bribes. If you would like to ask, do so privately and covertly. 100: You remind me of the happiest moment of my life, a camping trip where that jerk Michael broke his leg.

Don’t tell jokes. They are usually corny and prove you don’t respect the activity. Seriousness is paramount.
 * Stylistic advice ** :

Double-breathing is nice, but why stop at two? If your breath pattern involves four or more, I will reward you for your creativity and talent.

Be nice until the later speechs to lull your opponent into a false sense of security. At that point, have no mercy. Remember that they, like yourself, are vermin.


 * Cross-examination: ** I frequently find myself bored by cross-ex. People need, in general, to talk more loudly and really demonstrate their attachment to their arguments.

Wittiness is always a plus. Displays of violence should be kept to a minimum, but in the interest of being non-interventionist, I will do nothing more than watch with interest.


 * On evidence: ** This section is optional. If you are pressed for time, you do not have to read this. I am disturbed by the declining quality of evidence I have seen in policy debate over the last few years. Good cards are like women - the more the better – and solid evidence ALWAYS beats well-warranted “explanation.” I’m sorry, but your authors are more qualified than you, 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME. In the interest of making debate a better activity, I recommend the following resources to struggling researchers:

Ask Jeeves

*Dowling 2011 update*: Siri


 * *2012-13 update on paperless ** *: I just went to my first tournament where people were reading cards off their computers, having only heard rumors while in prison. Although “framer’s intent” is usually a stupid phrase (except in T debates), I don’t think our founding fathers would support this depraved practice. I will tolerate it because I don’t want to argue with tab too much and go back to prison, but if I receive ANY indication that you have accessed the internet or communicated with the outside world between when I enter the room and when I have left the room, I will not hesitate to break your computer. This is not a threat. This is a fact.


 * On clarity: ** Don’t. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak clearer than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue LD-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too clear, you are.

*Berkeley 2007 Update*: Some of you have been inquiring if this is a joke. It is not. If you are excessively clear, you will probably distract me from my game of Magic: The Gathering (see below) and cause me to make a crucial mistake. This will infuriate me. If I am being distracted by your speech, I will shush you a maximum of three times before signing my ballot and leaving the room.

Kritiques are rather confusing to me. I think an objective reality is a given, and most arguments are too esoteric to evaluate. Even straightforward things like Marx and Foucault are nightmares to judge because they are so unrealistic, and rarely interact with the aff in any way. If I am judging a K debate, my ballot will usually be a double-loss (I do not cave to the demands of the tab room fascists).
 * How I adjudicate debates: ** There are a few things my argumentative leanings do not quite cover. Firstly, I am a games-player. What the heck does that mean? Well, I view debate as a game, but not one as important as the game of Magic: The Gathering I will be participating in simultaneously. If I forgot my deck and you loan me some cards, I will be grateful and reward you with a ballot (see section on bribery). This, of course, detracts from flowing, but that’s overrated anyway. Firstly, debate is a mental activity – I should not have to expend physical energy to participate. Second, a good memory should be all you need – this activity is about rhetorical flourish.

When I do flow, it will be in pictographs. If you give me suggestions on how to express your argument through diagram in your speech, I will be more likely to get it down. However, I rarely look at my flow during the decision, which is often quite simple: Who won the warming debate? If that’s a wash, I look to claims made in this order: SPEC arguments, Counterplans, Inherency, Framework (aff AND neg), then anything else.

My favorite judges when I debated were Brian Henderson, Dustin Meyers-Levy, Calum Matheson, Justin Skarb, and Vince Woolums. I will try to evaluate the round as if one of them would die if I voted wrong. Judges I fundamentally disagree with include David Heidt, Geoff Lundeen, and anyone who has worked in a tab room before. I will try to evaluate the round as if one of them would die if I voted right.

*2012-13 update*: For more information, here’s how I have voted at each tournament this year. A star means I sat that round. A number sign (#) means I have since changed my mind (sorry guys!). Niles Township: Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg, Neg*. Iowa Valley: Aff, Aff, Aff, Aff, Aff, Aff, Aff*, Aff*, Aff*, Aff*. New Trier: Double Win, Double Win, Double Win, Neg(#), Double Win, Double Win, Double Win*, Double Loss* (note: I was removed from the pool at this point. If tab rooms will not respect me, I know not what more to do. Such is the condition of a martyr.) Iowa Caucus: Aff(#), Neg (#), Aff (#), Neg(#), Neg(#), Aff(#), Neg*, Aff*, Aff*, Double Win* (Screw you tab!!!!!!!!!!!!) *Michigan 2012 update*: From this point out, I will be keeping my aff bias at EXACTLY 50% when possible. This means I will frequently vote neg just to even out my numbers. I will be happy to share my voting record if you talk to me at the tournament.


 * As a final note on decisions, PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME. ** I am emotionally fragile.