Winters,+Cailin


 * Condensed paradigm for people in a rush:**
 * 1) Current student at Iowa State University, majoring in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Biomedical Engineering, but originally from Omaha, Nebraska. I debated policy for three years, was the district champion, and went to nationals. I was the State Runner Up, and am currently in the process of starting a debate program here at ISU. This is my second year judging varsity, third year judging in general. As a heads up, I haven't been on the circuit much this year, so I'm not super acquainted with the arguments being used. That being said, I still know the general arguments being run, but I am not super familiar with all the specific affirmatives.
 * Paper and paperless is all fine, but __//**prep will not stop until the flash drive leaves the** **computer,**//__ if you decide to use computers. I would also like it if everyone is able to time their own speeches and prep, as well. While I will be timing, I think it's good if everyone coordinates to be as fair as possible on the times.
 * Speed is fine, but you must be clear on the taglines and the authors, or I won't flow the argument.
 * I'm pretty straight up tabula rasa, but I have a reluctance to vote on:
 * **Inherency arguments.** Unless the case is blatantly not structurally and attitudinally inherent, I will not buy the argument.
 * I have difficulty believing that the debate space is a starting point for revolution. While I do buy that the debate space can change local mentalities, I have yet to see or believe that debate can spark a revolution that spreads across the country to access politics or political change.
 * **Framework arguments** **that deny the kritik and/or plantextless affs a space in debate.** Framework arguments that attack the methodology and/or the effectiveness of the case are fine, but I don't think that a position should be excluded from debate on the principal.
 * **The burden of proof is on the affirmative.** In difficult or close rounds where the aff has failed to adequately bring through their case, I will lean towards voting neg. Pull through your shit.
 * **isms:** I won't vote on racism/sexism good. It think it's an inherently untrue position and I can't find it in myself to ever vote for it. Additionally, on that note, racist/sexist/queerphobic comments towards me or your opponents will results in an automatic loss, zero speaks, and a talk with your coach, as well as the head of the tournament.
 * **Also, as one other thing**, please just give me a heads up if you're running narratives of sexual violence or have a case dealing closely with sexual violence. I think, due to the prevalence of sexual violence, and how many survivors of sexual violence participate in the activity, a form of trigger warning for cases dealing with sexual violence should be always offered to both the judge and the opponents before the round starts, as the material, especially for survivors, can be difficult to deal with. A trigger warning can't negate that, but it allows for some time for preparation for the ensuing round.


 * Okay, so here's the long explanation for anyone who's interested!**

> > > > > > > >
 * 1) **Inherency/Severence/Intrinsic Theory:** I have a reluctance to pull the trigger on these arguments if, and only if they are inherently untrue. If a case is clearly not inherent, or the affirmative has very obviously severed from or added to the concept of the plan, I will vote for this argument - just please make your argument clear and articulated. It makes it a lot easier.For example, if someone's running stuff about the government shutting down, and the evidence is around October of 2013 - well, the government shutdown, and there wasn't nuclear war, so that's obviously not an inherent argument. I guess what I'm trying to say is that gut check inherency/severence/intrinsic theory is easy for me to buy into, but I am reluctant to vote on it when it comes to making stretches on this theory. If someone runs "give everyone dogs", and your counterplan is "give everyone cats" and the aff perms to give everyone dogs and cats (which is an excellent idea by the way and one I completely endorse), that's not severing. C'mon, common sense kinda stuff.
 * 1) **Framework:** I don't like the idea that an argument should be rejected from the debate space on principal. However, I was a big framework debater while I was in high school, so a well constructed, well thought out framework argument is easy for me to buy into. Like any other debate argument, there has to be an articulation of why your framework is crucial for debate and why their aff should be rejected for not meeting your interpretation, and what the world of the opponent, if they win, looks like in context of debate. Explain how education is gained or lost in context of your opponents arguments and it's very easy for me to buy into these arguments.
 * 1) **Condo/Contradictory Positions//://** Running ideologically opposing positions, especially if one of them is a epistemology k, makes for bad debate. I mean, I'm not going to vote you down, but it just takes away your credibility and the legitimacy of your argument, and makes it easier for me to buy into any arguments about how your motives are disingenuous by your opponents. As far as the neg having a bunch of conditional positions that are only slightly ideologically misaligned, i.e. a fem k and a cap k, I don't mind that whatsoever. But don't run a neolib cp in one breath, and then run a discourse based anti-neolib k in the next. To me, it feels lazy and disingenuous.
 * 1) **Being an asshole:** Debate is a place to learn. Belittling people for not having as much experience, or as much skill is a jerk thing to do, and ultimately does not advocate for better education or a chance to learn. Don't be a jerk, don't be a jerk, don't be a jerk. It's that simple. That includes coaches/debaters/anyone in the room making rude comments about the other team or mocking the other team as people before/during/after the round. If you're being an asshole as the ballot runner is walking away, I will call them back and change your speaker points. Making fun of evidence, of arguments, being //sassy//, that's funny, and I appreciate the humor. But, being mean and attacking the character of a debater is not alright. This includes calling your opponents 'stupid' and/or 'idiots' in speeches. Tasteless, crass, and is poor argumentation.
 * 1) **Impact Analysis:** I love clear coherent impact evaluation. It doesn't have to be framed in terms of timeframe/probability/magnitude, but there should be an explanation of what will happen in the world of the aff/neg, and why that's bad. It makes it easy to vote.
 * 1) **Flow Evaluation:** If all offense is effectively handled, I will evaluate whichever flow you tell me to evaluate. However, if there's no indication of how I should vote, I default to T and/or Framework, then the CP and/or K and Case, then the various DAs and Advantages attached, in that order.
 * 1) **Heidegger:** I really enjoy good Heidegger arguments. That being said, I also ran Heidegger for the entirety of my high school career. If you don't know what you're talking about, or you're a novice that's just reading what your varsity members handed you, I will know. Trust me, //I will know.// So if you're going to run Heidegger, be ready and able to explain the position correctly.
 * 1) **Isms:** From an objective perspective, racism/sexism/queerphobia is never good in the large context of things, so it doesn't make sense to run it as a viable position in a debate round. On top of that, it's incredibly ignorant and borderline cruel to run racism/sexism/queerphobia good and completely dismisses historic struggles and institutionalized power that is activity affecting members of the debate community. I just can not and will not vote for it. That carries over to interactions in the round itself. If racist or sexist comments are made towards me or towards the other team, I will automatically vote you down. That is unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated in any form. This includes zero speaks for you and your partner, a talk with your head coach, and then a talk with the head of the tournament. Racism, sexism and queerphobia are serious issues and will be treated as such. No exceptions.
 * 1) **Sexual violence:** As I stated in the overview, I would like all affirmatives or negative positions that deal explicitly with sexual violence to preface the round with a form of trigger warning. I think this provides the most fairness in the round, and also allows for me to prepare myself. So if y'all could do this, that'd be really cool.


 * Other than that, I pretty much have no preference on specific arguments. I'll vote for any K, CP, T, FW, DA or Case argument, so long as the debaters running the argument run it well.**


 * Good luck and have fun!**